The climate emergency has been a wakeup call to everyone, and the ethologist and environmentalist is working as hard as ever to defeat it. She discusses horror, hope and heroism in her late 80s.

In Jane Goodall’s new book, there is a vivid description of her “deep bond” with a beech tree in the garden of her childhood home in Bournemouth. She would climb into its branches to read, hauling books and her homework up in a basket, and persuaded her grandmother to bequeath her the tree, named just Beech, in her will. She called the tree, as alive to her as any person or animal, “one of my closest childhood friends”. “There’s Beech,” she says now, pointing to the handsome tree, its leaves glowing in the morning sun, from the front doorstep.

The house, which first belonged to Goodall’s grandmother, is large and lovely, but modest, perhaps little changed from when Goodall lived here as a child; there are various animal feeding bowls in the living room, comfortingly cluttered, where we sit, with big windows that look out on to the garden. Her sister, Judy, and her family live here, and it’s home to Goodall when she’s not travelling the world, spreading her message of hope, and demanding action. Goodall was on her way to give a talk for Compassion in World Farming in Brussels last March, the taxi leaving the driveway, when Judy came rushing out to say it had been called off, and she has been grounded here since, mainly working from her attic bedroom.

At first, she says: “I was frustrated and angry. Then I thought: ‘Well, that’s useless.’” Her team from the Jane Goodall Institute swung into action, and she says she is busier than ever. “I’m doing Zooms, video messages, trying to keep in touch with everybody around the world where I would normally go.” She created a podcast, the Jane Goodall Hopecast, in which she interviews other environmentalists and activists. Although she doesn’t particularly like giving online lectures, speaking alone to the camera on her laptop, she knows that they can reach many more people than those few thousand who would ordinarily turn up to hear her in person. It has also given her a glimpse into a future where she may not have to slow down. When she reached her 80s – she is 87 – she had started wondering what she would do if travelling became too much. “But now I know I don’t have to travel.” And she has finished working on The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for an Endangered Planet, written by Douglas Abrams and based on long interviews with Goodall.

Goodall with chimpanzee Wounda on Tchindzoulou Island, Congo.

Goodall with chimpanzee Wounda on Tchindzoulou Island, Congo. Photograph: Brice Ngomo/Courtesy of the Jane Goodall Institute

She is “very much afraid” that the pandemic hasn’t been the wake-up call we needed, alarmed at how quickly we seem to be going back to normal. On the other hand, she thinks more politicians are starting to take notice of the climate emergency. “Thank goodness some rich countries are beginning to suffer – unfortunately that’s all that will make them take action. There’s more awareness, but unfortunately, most of it is words, words, words.” If promises are acted on we may be fine, she says, “but will they be?”

Does she have much hope for Cop26, the UN climate summit that begins in Glasgow at the end of this month? “I just pray that, unlike the Paris agreement, there will be follow-up action and not just words. The flooding in New York and New Orleans and the worst hurricanes in America, the flooding in Europe, the fires, that is a wake-up call and the wealthy countries can no longer just shrug their shoulders and say: ‘Well, it doesn’t matter what happens in Africa.’ Because we now know it’s all interconnected.”

After alleviating poverty, we must, as she says in the book, “reduce the unsustainable lifestyles of the affluent”. It has gone beyond individual responsibility now, hasn’t it? Don’t we need governments and corporations to take radical, and probably unpopular, action? “Of course,” she says, but each of us – as voters, as consumers – “has a huge role to play”. She thinks younger people are less consumerist than those ahead of them, and have perhaps more in common with the oldest generations. “I’m so fortunate because I grew up in the war. We didn’t consume, we weren’t materialistic.” Companies will change, says Goodall, “for two reasons. One, because this [more sustainable] ethic is creeping in and young people are growing up with a different understanding. The other reason is the writing is on the wall.” She gives the example of soft drinks manufacturers who contribute to water shortages in some areas. “If they go on using water the way they are using water, they won’t be able to make their drinks any more. So they have to find methods which are more saving.” She wouldn’t say everyone has to be vegan, but says: “If we don’t stop factory farming, we’ve had it.”

Goodall in the 70s.

Goodall in the 70s. Photograph: Everett/Shutterstock

We need compassion for future generations, she says in the book, not “sheer selfish greed for short-term benefits to increase the wealth and power of individuals, corporations and governments”. And hope is the precious resource. “What happens if we don’t have hope?” says Goodall, eyes bright. “We give up. If you don’t think what you do is going to make any difference, why bother to do it?” She respects Greta Thunberg’s blistering anger, but Goodall prefers a more hopeful approach, which suits her softer style; Goodall is fiercely determined, but there is also something childlike about her. Anger, while justified, can put people on the defensive. “You’ve got to reach the heart,” she says.

In the Book of Hope, Goodall admits to feeling, on many days, as if she’s fighting a losing battle against greed, corruption and prejudice. How does she overcome that? “See what’s happening in Afghanistan? It’s horrible. Fires in Siberia, so great that they’re not even trying to put them out any more. I mean, you have to feel depressed, but then there’s something that says: ‘There is still an awful lot left and that’s what we’ve got to fight to save.’ So then you get extra energy. I have days when I feel like not getting up, like, I wish I was dead, but it doesn’t last long. I guess because I’m obstinate.” She laughs. “I’m not going to give in. I’ll die fighting, that’s for sure.”

She gets up – “I should show you something” – and picks up a little box from beside the fireplace. It’s a tiny set of six drawers, made from matchboxes glued together. Goodall made it when she was 14 and had just been confirmed (she is spiritual, rather than “religious” now, she says). She hadn’t been impressed with the Christian platitudes she had been exposed to. “They were all very soothing. I thought: ‘The Bible isn’t all like that.’ So this is what I made. I still have it because my mother kept things. You better choose one.” I open a little drawer, and take out a scroll of paper, on which teenage Jane’s tiny handwriting says: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Goodall looks triumphant. “What have we been talking about?”

Once, home from travelling for just a few days with another trip looming, “I was grumbling to Judy, saying: ‘I don’t want to go, I’m tired of it.’ And she picked this box up and said: ‘Have a text.’” Three times in a row, despite putting it back in a different drawer, Goodall picked the same scroll, which she recites from memory: “He who has once set his hand to the plough and turns back, is not fit for the kingdom of heaven” (in other words, this is the path she is on). “So Judy said: ‘Off you go.’”

Goodall with baby chimpanzee Flint at Gombe.

Goodall with baby chimpanzee Flint at Gombe. Photograph: Hugo van Lawick/Courtesy of the Jane Goodall Institute

Does Goodall genuinely have hope that we can reverse the destruction we have inflicted on the planet in time? “If we get together,” she says. “It depends a lot on what happens at this summit and whether people actually mean what they say. We can’t wait only for the youth to grow up, because they want change, so you have to get to the politicians. Going back to being angry with people, I think people have to change from within, not be told: ‘You’ve got to change.’”

Empathy – with trees, with animals – has characterised all Goodall’s work. She was criticised for it in the 60s, when she began studying chimpanzees. In her 20s, she had gone to Gombe national park in Tanzania to study the animals, at the request of the palaeoanthropologist Louis Leakey, who had wanted someone enthusiastic but untouched by formal scientific training (Goodall had been his secretary). Over long, patient months, Goodall made some incredible discoveries, including the observation that chimps would use tools when trying to catch termites. Until then, the prevailing thought was that the ability to make and use tools was what separated humans from animals. Later, when Goodall went to Cambridge to get a PhD, it wasn’t the fact that she was a rare woman, she says, that marked her out, but that she was “a rebel. I was talking about animals with personalities, minds, feelings, giving them names, fighting against the fact that a scientist shouldn’t have empathy, and saying that empathy was what gave rise to the ‘Aha!’ moments.” Her eyes widen. “We were actually taught that there was a difference in kind between us and all the other animals. My dog had taught me that that wasn’t true.”

Goodall had grown up loving animals. She was one of the last debutantes, presented to the Queen – her own family were not wealthy or well connected, but an uncle (by marriage) was – and she remembers waiting with the others. “They were all saying their ambition was to be a lady-in-waiting, or to catch a rich husband. When one of them asked me what I wanted to do, and I said: ‘I want to go to Africa and live with wild animals’, they literally withdrew and they wouldn’t talk to me any more.”

When she started working in Tanzania, and her work was becoming famous, the idea of this beautiful young white woman living in a forest was irresistible to the press. That only increased when she and Hugo van Lawick, a handsome aristocratic film-maker sent to document her work, fell in love (they married and had a son, whom they raised at Goodall’s research station for the first few years of his life; she later married a second time). Did it bother her, the way reports focused on her looks? One headline called her a “pert scientist”. “No, not at the time. It was a different era,” she says. “All I wanted to do was learn about the chimps. I didn’t even want to be a scientist.”

Those early days in Gombe were the happiest of her life. “Once the chimps had become used to me, didn’t run away, oh, there were such amazing days,” she says, beaming. “I knew those chimps intimately. Now looking back, watching that film Jane [a 2017 documentary about those early years], seeing myself playing with eight-year-old Figan, he could have eaten my face off. But at the time, it was wonderful.”

She was criticised for setting up feeding stations to attract the chimps and acknowledges that she wouldn’t do that now. “But at that time, if we hadn’t done the banana feeding, National Geographic wouldn’t have come in [and continued funding Goodall’s research] because they could get good pictures and film, and then Gombe wouldn’t be there.” And once they learned that disease could be transmitted from humans to chimps, contact stopped. It’s necessary, she says, but “for me, that’s sad”.

Goodall turned her focus to environmentalism – having witnessed the deforestation around Gombe – and embarked on life as a campaigner, which sees her travelling for about 300 days of the year. She does worry about her carbon footprint, she says, but believes it is more than offset by the millions of trees that have been planted as a result of the work her institute does (“It’s not as if I have a private jet”), and her Roots and Shoots programme, which has 100,000 young people all over the world involved in projects.

‘I think people have to change from within, not be told: You’ve got to change.’

‘I think people have to change from within, not be told: You’ve got to change.’ Photograph: Victoria Will/Invision/AP

She seems to live frugally in all other respects. It’s strange to see Goodall, in her childhood home, sitting on her sofa with a biscuit, and reconciling it with the celebrated woman – people like to touch her, as if she is a saint – out there in the world. “It’s totally weird,” says Goodall, of the person she has turned out to be. “At first, I hated it, I would hide from the press and then I realised, actually, I’d better make use of this.”

She has no plans to retire and jokes that her diary is filled for at least the next decade (it probably isn’t a joke). Is she – morbid question – aware of time running out? “I’m nearly 88,” she says. “I won’t live for ever. I could live to be 110 – people do – but I don’t want to. I want to live as long as I can work.” Death, she says, sounding totally pragmatic, “is going to come some time. I’m not afraid of death.”

There is a horrible moment in Jane, the documentary, in which, following a polio outbreak among the chimpanzees, one of them has to be euthanised. “Mr McGregor,” she says, when I bring it up. By this point in the film, the chimps seem so human – or we seem so animal. Does she think it’s time we had assisted dying for humans? “Yes, I think there should be voluntary ending. I don’t want to live if I have to be waited on. I don’t want that. Assisted dying, I think, is a good thing.”

Anyway, she says, laughing brightly as if to break my morbid gloom despite the autumnal sun flooding through the windows, the end is not something she thinks about. “I say to Mary [Goodall’s assistant and co-chair of the Institute’s board]: ‘Oh, come on, I cannot do any more. You’ve got me down for three Zooms today. I don’t care if I die.’ And she says: ‘Oh, Jane, please don’t die! We haven’t planned your obituaries yet.’” There is too much to be done. Goodall will be out on the road again before long, and while she is spurred on by loss and by destruction, it is hope that she will focus on.

The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for an Endangered Planet by Jane Goodall and Douglas Abrams is published by Viking (£16.99) on 21 October. To support The Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com.

Quelle: Jane Goodall on fires, floods, frugality and the good fight: ‘People have to change from within’

Here two other links: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/book-excerpt-jane-goodall-the-book-of-hope-a-survival-guide-for-trying-times/ https://www.rd.com/article/jane-goodall-on-hope/

Tyson Yunkaporta discusses the myth of infinite economic growth, representational politics, and returning to the law of the land.

Quelle: Tyson Yunkaporta: A different kind of growth — GREEN DREAMER

Mark Zuckerberg’s manifesto outlines his vision for a centralised global colony ruled by the Silicon Valley oligarchy. I say we must do the exact opposite and create a world with individual sovereignty and a healthy commons.

English | Nederlands | Français | Catalan | Español | Deutsch

A hand holding a mobile phone – the symbol of cyborg rights
We are sharded beings.
Let’s build a future where we own and control all aspects of our selves.

Mark Zuckerberg has released a manifesto titled Building Global Community in which he details how he – one of the top 8 billionaires in the world – and his byzantine American/multinational corporation, Facebook Incorporated, are going to solve all of the world’s problems.

In his grand vision for humanity, Mark keeps returning to how Facebook fundamentally “brings us closer together” by “connecting friends and families.” What Mark fails to mention is that Facebook does not connect people together; Facebook connects people to Facebook, Inc.

Facebook’s myth: that it connects you to each other.
Facebook: the myth
Mark wants you to think Facebook connects you to each other.
Facebook’s reality: it connects you to Facebook, Inc..
Facebook: the reality
Facebook connects you to Facebook, Inc.

Facebook’s business model is to be the man in the middle; to track every move you, your family, and your friends make, to store all that information indefinitely, and continuously analyse it to understand you better in order to exploit you by manipulating you for financial and political gain.

Facebook isn’t a social network, it is a scanner that digitises human beings. It is, for all intents and purposes, the camera that captures your soul. Facebook’s business is to simulate you and to own and control your simulation, thereby owning and controlling you.

Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us build a world without kings.

I call the business model of Facebook, Google, and the venture-capital-funded long tail of Silicon Valley startups “people farming”. Facebook is a factory farm for human beings. And Mark’s manifesto is nothing more than a panicked billionaire’s latest sophomoric attempt to decorate an unpalatable business model grounded in the abuse of human rights with faux moral purpose to stave off regulation and justify what is unabashedly a colonial desire: to create a global fiefdom by connecting all of us to Facebook, Inc.

Avoiding a Global Colony

Mark’s manifesto isn’t about building a global community, it is about building a global colony – with himself as king and with his corporation and the Silicon Valley oligarchy as the court.

Facebook wants us to think that it is a park when it’s actually a shopping mall.

It is not the job of a corporation to “develop the social infrastructure for community” as Mark wants to do. Social infrastructure must belong to the commons, not to giant monopolistic corporations like Facebook. The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance, filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of private infrastructure that poses as public space.

Facebook wants us to think that it is a park when it’s actually a shopping mall. The last thing we need is more privately owned centralised digital infrastructure to solve the problems created by an unprecedented concentration of power, wealth, and control in a tiny number of hands. It’s way past time we started funding and building the digital equivalents of parks in the digital age instead of building ever-larger shopping malls.

Others have written detailed critiques of Mark’s manifesto. I will not repeat their efforts here. Instead, I want to focus on how we can build a world that stands in stark contrast to the one in Mark’s vision. A world in which we – individuals – instead of corporations, have ownership and control of our selves. In other words, where we have individual sovereignty.

Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us build a world without kings. Where Mark’s vision is rooted in colonialism and the perpetuation of centralised power and control, mine is based on individual sovereignty and a healthy, distributed commons.

Individual Sovereignty and the Cyborg Self

We can no longer afford the luxury of not understanding the nature of the self in the digital age. The very existence of our freedoms and democracy depend on it.

We are (and we have been for a while now) cyborgs.

We must resist any attempt to reduce people to property with the greatest of fervour.

In that, I don’t mean to conjure up the stereotypical representation of cyborgs as prevalent in science fiction wherein technology is implanted within biological tissue. Instead, I offer a more general definition in which the term applies to any extension of our minds and our biological selves using technology. While technological implants are certainly feasible, possible, and demonstrable, the main way in which we extend ourselves with technology today is not through implants but explants.

We are sharded beings; the sum total of our various aspects as contained within our biological beings as well as the myriad of technologies that we use to extend our biological abilities.

An illustration showing a person’s phone within the boundaries of her self.
We must constitutionally protect the dignity and sanctity of the extended self.

Once we understand this, it follows that we must extend the protections of the self beyond our biological borders to encompass those technologies by which we extend our selves. Wherefore, any attempt to own, control, and trade in these technologies by third parties is an attempt to own, control, and trade in the constitutional elements of people. It is, in short, an attempt to own, control, and trade in people.

Needless to say, we must resist any attempt to reduce people to property with the greatest of fervour. For to not do so is to give our tacit consent to a new slavery: one in which we do not trade in the biological aspects of human beings but their digital aspects. The two, of course, do not exist apart and are not truly separable when manipulation of one necessarily affects the other.

Beyond Surveillance Capitalism

Once we understand that our relationship to technology is not one of master/butler but cyborg/organ; once we understand that we extend our selves with technology and that our technology and data lie within the boundaries of the self, then we must insist that the constitutional protections of the self that we have enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and implemented within our myriad of national laws are extended to protect the cyborg self.

It also follows, then, that any attempt to violate the boundaries of the self must be considered an assault on the cyborg self. It is exactly this abuse that constitutes the everyday business model of Facebook, Google, and mainstream Silicon Valley-inspired technology today. In this model, which Shoshana Zuboff calls surveillance capitalism, what we have lost is individual sovereignty. People have once again become property – albeit in digital, not biological, form.

To counter this, we must build new infrastructure to enable people to regain individual sovereignty. Those aspects of the infrastructure that concern the world around us must belong to the commons and those parts that concern people – that make up the organs of our cyborg selves – must be owned and controlled by individuals.

So, for example, smart city architecture must be in the commons and data about the world around us (“data about rocks”) must belong to the commons, while your smart car, smart phone, smart watch, smart teddy bear, etc., and the data they collect (“data about people”) must belong to you.

An Internet of people

Imagine a world where everyone has their own space on the Internet, funded from the commons. This is a private space (an organ of the cyborg self) that all our so-called smart devices (also organs) link into.

Instead of thinking of this space as a personal cloud, we must consider it a special, permanent node within a peer-to-peer structure wherein all our various devices (organs) connect to one another. Pragmatically, this permanent node is used to guarantee findability (initially using domain names) and availability (as it is hosted/always on) as we transition from the client/server architecture of the current Web to the peer-to-peer architecture of the next generation Internet.

Everyone has their own place on the Internet that all their devices connect to.
An Internet of people.

The infrastructure we build must be funded from the commons, belong to the commons, and be interoperable. The services themselves must be constructed and hosted by a plethora of individual organisations – not governments or corporate behemoths – working with interoperable protocols and competing to provide the best service possible to the people they serve. Not coincidentally, this severely limited scope of corporate function marks the entirety of a corporation’s role within a democracy as I see it.

The sole purpose of a corporation should be to compete with other organisations to provide the best service to the people it serves. This is in stark contrast to the wide remit corporations have today to attract people (whom they call “users”) under false pretences (free services wherein they are the product being sold) only to addict them, entrap them with lock-in using proprietary technology, farm them, manipulate their behaviour, and exploit them for financial and political gain.

In the corporatocracy of today, we – individuals – serve corporations. In the democracy of tomorrow, corporations must serve us.

The service providers must, of course, be free to extend the capabilities of the system as long as they share their improvements back into the commons (“share alike”), thus avoiding lock-in. For providing services above and beyond the core services funded from the commons, individual organisations may set prices for and charge for value-added services. In this way, we can build a healthy economy of competition on top of an ethically sound core instead of the system of monopolies we have today on top of an ethically rotten core. And we can do so without embroiling the whole system in convoluted government bureaucracy that would stifle experimentation, competition, and the organic, decentralised evolution of the system.

A healthy economy built upon an ethical core.
A healthy economy built upon an ethical core.

Interoperability, free (as in freedom) technology with “share alike” licenses, a peer-to-peer architecture (as opposed to client/server), and a commons-funded core are the fundamental safeguards for preventing this new system from decaying into a new version of the monopolistic surveillance web we have today. They are how we avoid economies of scale and break the feedback loop between the accumulation of information and wealth that is the core driver of surveillance capitalism.

To be perfectly clear, we are not talking about a system that can flourish under the dictates of late-stage surveillance capitalism. It is a system, however, that can be constructed under present conditions to act as the bridge from that status quo to a sustainable, post-capitalist world.

Building the world you want to live in

In a talk I gave at a European Commission event in Rome recently, I told the audience that we must “build the world we want to live in.” For me, that is not a world owned and controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley oligarchs. It is a world with a healthy commons wherein we – as a community – collectively own and control those aspects of our existence that belong to us all and where we – as individuals – individually own and control those aspects of our existence that belong to our selves.

Imagine a world where you (and those you love) have democratic agency; where we all enjoy basic welfare, rights, and freedoms befitting cyborg dignity. Imagine a sustainable world freed of the destructive short-term greed of capitalism where we no longer reward sociopaths for finding ever more ruthless and destructive ways to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Imagine a free world removed from the feedback loop of manufactured fear and ubiquitous surveillance that has us spiralling deeper into a fresh vortex of fascism. Imagine a world where we grant ourselves the mercy of an intellectually rewarding existence where we are free to explore the potential of our species among the stars.

That is the world that I wake up every day to work towards. Not because it is charitable. Not because I’m a philanthropist. In fact, for no reason at all other than because that is the world that I want to live in.

Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

Quelle: Cultural Revolutions

„I was most recently enlivened by a book, so I can’t think of anything more fitting for my return to this format than an account of it: 1000 Years of Joys and Sorrows, by the great Chinese artist Ai Wei-Wei.“ (Edward Snowden)

Ai Wei-Wei writes:

„Under the pressure to conform, everyone sank into an ideological swamp of “criticism” and “self-­criticism.” My father repeatedly wrote self-­critiques, and when controls on thought and expression rose to the level of threatening his very survival, he, like others, wrote an essay denouncing Wang Shiwei, the author of “Wild Lilies,” taking a public stand that went against his inner convictions.

Situations such as this occurred in Yan’an in the 1940s, occurred in China after 1949, and still occur in the present day. Ideological cleansing, I would note, exists not only under totalitarian regimes—­it is also present, in a different form, in liberal Western democracies. Under the influence of politically correct extremism, individual thought and expression are too often curbed and too often replaced by empty political slogans.“

In „The Every,“ Dave Eggers imagines a monopoly so vast that resistance is futile.

Quelle: What if Facebook and Amazon merged? Dave Eggers imagines our dystopian future

What was first? Dave Eggers‘ novel or this reality?

A former Facebook employee has told US politicians that the company’s sites and apps harm children’s mental health and stoke division in society.

Frances Haugen, a 37-year-old former product manager turned whistleblower, heavily criticised the company at a hearing in the Senate.

Facebook has faced growing scrutiny and increasing calls for its regulation. (…)“

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965

The Danish director’s new Oscar-winning film Another Round is about a group of teachers who dedicate themselves to getting drunk. He talks about losing control, patching up his friendship with Lars von Trier and the death of his daughter

Quelle: Thomas Vinterberg: ‘There is a great need for the uncontrollable – but little room for it today’

„We can have democracy, or we can have a surveillance society, but we cannot have both.

Who knows? Who decides who knows? Who decides who decides who knows? Surveillance capitalists now hold the answers to each question, though we never elected them to govern.“

(Shoshana Zuboff, Jan. 29, 2021 in The New York Times)

Quelle: Opinion | The Coup We Are Not Talking About

The web’s inventor believes the liberation of our data will help redistribute power on the internet.

Quelle: Tim Berners-Lee’s plan to save the internet: give us back control of our data