Surely not?!

Yet David Cox, it seems, has already thrown in the towel, contenting himself with unconstructive commentaries on the situation as a ruthless Mother Nature (who is still only just "warming up" for the job) solves the "Sustainability Problem" for us, as she does for all other species.

One thing is for sure (and this, I suspect, is where David Cox derives his pessimism): we are never ALL going to agree, even on what exactly the problem is, let alone what we want to do about it. And we hope in vain for the emergence of great leaders who will coerce us all into doing what is necessary.

What we CAN do, however, now that we (in the West) have the freedom and the technology (Internet, biometrics etc.) to do it, is SELF-ORGANIZE ourselves into a multitude (as many as there is a need for) of "religious societies". "Religious", not in its usual sense, but in its literal sense of "to bind together" (L. religare), whose who have enough in common to act together, and feel they belong together, not seeking to "exploit" each other, but tapping into the potential and "enthusiasm" that is within us, giving it rational direction (rather than the irrational direction and dubious purposes of conventional religion).

Once the open-source software is developed and made available it will be possible for individuals to self-organize into groups, groups into groups of groups, etc. Just as atoms and molecules have the potential to self-organize into living organisms, so too (I speculate) do human beings have the potential to self-organize into just, humane and sustainable societies, themselves with the potential to self-organize into a diverse, just, humane and sustainable global society.

At the moment, we have those on the Right, who put their faith in (and money on) free markets (which I'm sure cannot possibly work, because rooted in our dumb-animal nature and behaviour, which will continue the Darwinian struggle, for which it evolved, to self-destruction), and those on the Left who want to organize multi-mass society on a national (or supranational) scale, according to their own pet ideologies (and in a more devious kind of way are also largely driven by their dumb-animal nature, using the power of the "moral high ground" rather than of money to their own advantage).

If I had to choose between the two I'd go for the former, for the same reason that I favoured the capitalist West over the Communist East, preferring to see us go out with an honest bang than with a politically correct whimper!

But there's a third way. At least, I think there is, which is surely worth giving some thought to. We've nothing to lose, and possibly a whole world to gain.