Fritjof Capra: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

Fritjof Capra
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Reflections on the Spirit and Legacy of the Sixties

The 1960s were the period of my life during which I experienced the most profound and most radical personal transformation. For those of us who identify with the cultural and political movements of the sixties, that period represents not so much a decade as a state of consciousness, characterized by "transpersonal" expansion, the questioning of authority, a sense of empowerment, and the experience of sensuous beauty and community.

This state of consciousness reached well into the seventies. In fact, one could say that the sixties came to an end only in December 1980, with the shot that killed John Lennon. The immense sense of loss felt by so many of us was, to a great extent, about the loss of an era. For a few days after the fatal shooting we relived the magic of the sixties. We did so in sadness and with tears, but the same feeling of enchantment and of community was once again alive. Wherever you went during those few days — in every neighborhood, every city, every country around the world — you heard John Lennon's music, and the intense idealism that had carried us through the sixties manifested itself once again:

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

In this essay, I shall try to evoke the spirit of that remarkable period, identify its defining characteristics, and provide an answer to some questions that are often asked nowadays: What happened to the cultural movements of the sixties? What did they achieve, and what, if any, is their legacy?

The era of the sixties was dominated by an expansion of consciousness in two directions. One movement, in reaction to the increasing materialism and secularism of Western society, embraced a new kind of spirituality akin to the mystical traditions of the East. This involved an expansion of consciousness toward experiences involving nonordinary modes of awareness, which are traditionally achieved through meditation but may also occur in various other contexts, and which psychologists at the time began to call "transpersonal." Psychedelic drugs played a significant role in that movement, as did the human potential movement's promotion of expanded sensory awareness, expressed in its exhortation, "Get out of your head and into your senses!"

The first expansion of consciousness, then, was a movement beyond materialism and toward a new spirituality, beyond ordinary reality via meditative and psychedelic experiences, and beyond rationality through expanded sensory awareness. The combined effect was a continual sense of magic, awe, and wonder that for many of us will forever be associated with the sixties.

The other movement was an expansion of social consciousness, triggered by a radical questioning of authority. This happened independently in several areas. While the American civil rights movement demanded that Black citizens be included in the political process, the free speech movement at Berkeley and student movements at other universities throughout the United States and Europe demanded the same for students.

In Europe, these movements culminated in the memorable revolt of French university students that is still known simply as "May '68." During that time, all research and teaching activities came to a complete halt at most French universities when the students, led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, extended their critique to society as a whole and sought the solidarity of the French labor movement to change the entire social order. For three weeks, the administrations of Paris and other French cities, public transport, and businesses of every kind were paralyzed by a general strike. In Paris, people spent most of their time discussing politics in the streets, while the students held strategic discussions at the Sorbonne and other universities. In addition, they occupied the Odéon, the spacious theater of the Comédie Française, and transformed it into a twenty-four-hour "people's parliament," where they discussed their stimulating, albeit highly idealistic, visions of a future social order.

1968 was also the year of the celebrated "Prague Spring," during which Czech citizens, led by Alexander Dubcek, questioned the authority of the Soviet regime, which alarmed the Soviet Communist party to such an extent that, a few months later, it crushed the democratization processes initiated in Prague in its brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia.

In the United States, opposition to the Vietnam war became a political rallying point for the student movement and the counterculture. It sparked a huge anti-war movement, which exerted a major influence on the American political scene and led to many memorable events, including the decision by President Johnson not to seek reelection, the turbulent 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, the Watergate scandal, and the resignation of President Nixon.

While the civil rights movement questioned the authority of white society and the student movements questioned the authority of their universities on political issues, the women's movement began to question patriarchal authority; humanistic psychologists undermined the authority of doctors and therapists; and the sexual revolution, triggered by the availability of birth control pills, broke down the puritan attitudes toward sexuality that were typical of American culture.

The radical questioning of authority and the expansion of social and transpersonal consciousness gave rise to a whole new culture — a "counterculture" — that defined itself in opposition to the dominant "straight" culture by embracing a different set of values. The members of this alternative culture, who were called "hippies" by outsiders but rarely used that term themselves, were held together by a strong sense of community. To distinguish ourselves from the crew cuts and polyester suits of that era's business executives, we wore long hair, colorful and individualistic clothes, flowers, beads, and other jewelry. Many of us were vegetarians who often baked our own bread, practiced yoga or some other form of meditation, and learned to work with our hands in various crafts.

Our subculture was immediately identifiable and tightly bound together. It had its own rituals, music, poetry, and literature; a common fascination with spirituality and the occult; and the shared vision of a peaceful and beautiful society. Rock music and psychedelic drugs were powerful bonds that strongly influenced the art and lifestyle of the hippie culture. In addition, the closeness, peacefulness, and trust of the hippie communities were expressed in casual communal nudity and freely shared sexuality. In our homes we would frequently burn incense and keep little altars with eclectic collections of statues of Indian gods and goddesses, meditating Buddhas, yarrow stalks or coins for consulting the I Ching, and various personal "sacred" objects.

Although different branches of the sixties movement arose independently and often remained distinct movements with little overlap for several years, they eventually became aware of one another, expressed mutual solidarity, and, during the 1970s, merged more or less into a single subculture. By that time, psychedelic drugs, rock music, and the hippie fashion had transcended national boundaries and had forged strong ties among the international counterculture. Multinational hippie tribes gathered in several countercultural centers — London, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Greenwich Village — as well as in more remote and exotic cities like Marrakech and Katmandu. These frequent cross-cultural exchanges gave rise to an "alternative global awareness" long before the onset of economic globalization.

The zeitgeist of the sixties found expression in many art forms that often involved radical innovations, absorbed various facets of the counterculture, and strengthened the multiple relationships among the international alternative community.

Rock music was the strongest among these artistic bonds. The Beatles broke down the authority of studios and songwriters by writing their own music and lyrics, creating new musical genres, and setting up their own production company. While doing so, they incorporated many facets of the period's characteristic expansion of consciousness into their songs and lifestyles.

Bob Dylan expressed the spirit of the political protests in powerful poetry and music that became anthems of the sixties. The Rolling Stones represented the counterculture's irreverence, exuberance, and sexual energy, while San Francisco's "acid rock" scene gave expression to its psychedelic experiences.

At the same time, the "free jazz" of John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, Archie Shepp, and others shattered conventional forms of jazz improvisation and gave expression to spirituality, radical political poetry, street theater, and other elements of the counterculture. Like the jazz musicians, classical composers, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen in Germany and John Cage in the United States, broke down conventional musical forms and incorporated much of the sixties' spontaneity and expanded awareness into their music.

The fascination of the hippies with Indian religious philosophies, art, and culture led to a great popularity of Indian music. Most record collections in those days contained albums of Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar Khan, and other masters of classical Indian music along with rock and folk music, jazz and blues.

The rock and drug culture of the sixties found its visual expressions in the psychedelic posters of the era's legendary rock concerts, especially in San Francisco, and in album covers of ever increasing sophistication, which became lasting icons of the sixties' subculture. Many rock concerts also featured "light shows" — a novel form of psychedelic art in which images of multicolored, pulsating, and ever changing shapes were projected onto walls and ceilings. Together with the loud rock music, these visual images created highly effective simulations of psychedelic experiences.

The main expressions of sixties' poetry were in the lyrics of rock and folk music. In addition, the "beat poetry" of Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Gary Snyder, and others, which had originated a decade earlier and shared many characteristics with the sixties' art forms, remained popular in the counterculture.

One of the major new literary forms was the "magical realism" of Latin American literature. In their short stories and novels, writers like Jorges Luis Borges and Gabriel García Márquez blended descriptions of realistic scenes with fantastic and dreamlike elements, metaphysical allegories, and mythical images. This was a perfect genre for the counterculture's fascination with altered states of consciousness and pervasive sense of magic.

In addition to the Latin American magical realism, science fiction, especially the complex series of Dune novels by Frank Herbert, exerted great fascination on the sixties' youth, as did the fantasy writings of J. R. R. Tolkien and Kurt Vonnegut. Many of us also turned to literary works of the past, such as the romantic novels of Hermann Hesse, in which we saw reflections of our own experiences.

Of equal, if not greater, popularity were the semi-fictional shamanistic writings of Carlos Castaneda, which satisfied the hippies' yearning for spirituality and "separate realities" mediated by psychedelic drugs. In addition, the dramatic encounters between Carlos and the Yaqui sorcerer Don Juan symbolized in a powerful way the clashes between the rational approach of modern industrial societies and the wisdom of traditional cultures.

In the sixties, the performing arts experienced radical innovations that broke every imaginable tradition of theater and dance. In fact, in companies like the Living Theater, the Judson Dance Theater, and the San Francisco Mime Troupe, theater and dance were often fused and combined with other forms of art. The performances involved trained actors and dancers as well as visual artists, musicians, poets, filmmakers, and even members of the audience.

Men and women often enjoyed equal status; nudity was frequent. Performances, often with strong political content, took place not only in theaters but also in museums, churches, parks, and in the streets. All these elements combined to create the dramatic expansion of experience and strong sense of community that was typical of the counterculture.

Film, too, was an important medium for expressing the zeitgeist of the sixties. Like the performing artists, the sixties' filmmakers, beginning with the pioneers of the French New Wave cinema, broke with the traditional techniques of their art, introducing multi-media approaches, often abandoning narratives altogether, and using their films to give a powerful voice to social critique.

With their innovative styles, these filmmakers expressed many key characteristics of the counterculture. For example, we can find the sixties' irreverence and political protest in the films of Godard; the questioning of materialism and a pervasive sense of alienation in Antonioni; questioning of the social order and transcendence of ordinary reality in Fellini; the exposure of class hypocrisy in Buñuel; social critique and utopian visions in Kubrik; the breaking down of sexual and gender stereotypes in Warhol; and the portrayal of altered states of consciousness in the works of experimental filmmakers like Kenneth Anger and John Whitney. In addition, the films of these directors are characterized by a strong sense of magical realism.

Many of the cultural expressions that were radical and subversive in the sixties have been accepted by broad segments of mainstream culture during the subsequent three decades. Examples would be the long hair and sixties fashion, the practice of Eastern forms of meditation and spirituality, recreational use of marijuana, increased sexual freedom, rejection of sexual and gender stereotypes, and the use of rock (and more recently rap) music to express alternative cultural values. All of these were once expressions of the counterculture that were ridiculed, suppressed, and even persecuted by the dominant mainstream society.

Beyond these contemporary expressions of values and esthetics that were shared by the sixties' counterculture, the most important and enduring legacy of that era has been the creation and subsequent flourishing of a global alternative culture that shares a set of core values. Although many of these values — e.g. environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, global justice — were shaped by cultural movements in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, their essential core was first expressed by the sixties' counterculture. In addition, many of today's senior progressive political activists, writers, and community leaders trace the roots of their original inspiration back to the sixties.

In the sixties we questioned the dominant society and lived according to different values, but we did not formulate our critique in a coherent, systematic way. We did have concrete criticisms on single issues, such as the Vietnam war, but we did not develop any comprehensive alternative system of values and ideas. Our critique was based on intuitive feeling; we lived and embodied our protest rather than verbalizing and systematizing it.

The seventies brought consolidation of our views. As the magic of the sixties gradually faded, the initial excitement gave way to a period of focusing, digesting, and integrating. Two new cultural movements, the ecology movement and the feminist movement, emerged during the seventies and together provided the much-needed broad framework for our critique and alternative ideas.

The European student movement, which was largely Marxist oriented, was not able to turn its idealistic visions into realities during the sixties. But it kept its social concerns alive during the subsequent decade, while many of its members went through profound personal transformations. Influenced by the two major political themes of the seventies, feminism and ecology, these members of the "new left" broadened their horizons without losing their social consciousness. At the end of the decade, many of them became the leaders of transformed socialist parties. In Germany, these "young socialists" formed coalitions with ecologists, feminists, and peace activists, out of which emerged the Green Party — a new political party whose members confidently declared: "We are neither left nor right; we are in front."

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Green movement became a permanent feature of the European political landscape, and Greens now hold seats in numerous national and regional parliaments around the world. They are the political embodiment of the core values of the sixties.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the American anti-war movement expanded into the anti-nuclear and peace movements, in solidarity with corresponding movements in Europe, especially those in the UK and West Germany. This, in turn, sparked a powerful peace movement in East Germany, led by the Protestant churches, which maintained regular contacts with the West German peace movement, and in particular with Petra Kelly, the charismatic leader of the German Greens.

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, he was well aware of the strength of the Western peace movement and accepted our argument that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. This realization played an important part in Gorbachev's "new thinking" and his restructuring (perestroika) of the Soviet regime, which would lead, eventually, to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the end of Soviet Communism.

All social and political systems are highly nonlinear and do not lend themselves to being analyzed in terms of linear chains of cause and effect. Nevertheless, careful study of our recent history shows that the key ingredient in creating the climate that led to the end of the Cold War was not the hard-line strategy of the Reagan administration, as the conservative mythology would have it, but the international peace movement. This movement clearly had its political and cultural roots in the student movements and counterculture of the sixties.

The last decade of the twentieth century brought a global phenomenon that took most cultural observers by surprise. A new world emerged, shaped by new technologies, new social structures, a new economy, and a new culture. "Globalization" became the term used to summarize the extraordinary changes and the seemingly irresistible momentum that were now felt by millions of people.

A common characteristic of the multiple aspects of globalization is a global information and communications network based on revolutionary new technologies. The information technology revolution is the result of a complex dynamic of technological and human interactions, which produced synergistic effects in three major areas of electronics — computers, microelectronics, and telecommunications. The key innovations that created the radically new electronic environment of the 1990s all took place 20 years earlier, during the 1970s.

It may be surprising to many that, like so many other recent cultural movements, the information technology revolution has important roots in the sixties' counterculture. It was triggered by a dramatic technological development — a shift from data storage and processing in large, isolated machines to the interactive use of microcomputers and the sharing of computer power in electronic networks. This shift was spearheaded by young technology enthusiasts who embraced many aspects of the counterculture, which was still very much alive at that time.

The first commercially successful microcomputer was built in 1976 by two college dropouts, Steve Wosniak and Steve Jobs, in their now legendary garage in Silicon Valley. These young innovators and others like them brought the irreverent attitudes, freewheeling lifestyles, and strong sense of community they had adopted in the counterculture to their working environments. In doing so, they created the relatively informal, open, decentralized, and cooperative working styles that became characteristic of the new information technologies.

However, the ideals of the young technology pioneers of the seventies were not reflected in the new global economy that emerged from the information technology revolution 20 years later. On the contrary, what emerged was a new materialism, excessive corporate greed, and a dramatic rise of unethical behavior among our corporate and political leaders. These harmful and destructive attitudes are direct consequences of a new form of global capitalism, structured largely around electronic networks of financial and informational flows. The so-called "global market" is a network of machines programmed according to the fundamental principle that money-making should take precedence over human rights, democracy, environmental protection, or any other value.

Since the new economy is organized according to this quintessential capitalist principle, it is not surprising that it has produced a multitude of interconnected harmful consequences that are in sharp contradiction to the ideals of the global Green movement: rising social inequality and social exclusion, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the natural environment, and increasing poverty and alienation. The new global capitalism has threatened and destroyed local communities around the world; and with the pursuit of an ill-conceived biotechnology, it has invaded the sanctity of life by attempting to turn diversity into monoculture, ecology into engineering, and life itself into a commodity.

It has become increasingly clear that global capitalism in its present form is unsustainable and needs to be fundamentally redesigned. Indeed, scholars, community leaders, and grassroots activists around the world are now raising their voices, demanding that we must "change the game" and suggesting concrete ways of doing so.

At the turn of this century, an impressive global coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), many of them led by men and women with deep personal roots in the sixties, formed around the core values of human dignity and ecological sustainability. In 1999, hundreds of these grassroots organizations interlinked electronically for several months to prepare for joint protest actions at the meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. The "Seattle Coalition," as it is now called, was extremely successful in derailing the WTO meeting and in making its views known to the world. Its concerted actions have permanently changed the political climate around the issue of economic globalization.

Since that time, the Seattle Coalition, or "global justice movement," has not only organized further protests but has also held several World Social Forum meetings in Porto Alegre, Brazil. At the second of these meetings, the NGOs proposed a whole set of alternative trade policies, including concrete and radical proposals for restructuring global financial institutions, which would profoundly change the nature of globalization.

The global justice movement exemplifies a new kind of political movement that is typical of our Information Age. Because of their skillful use of the Internet, the NGOs in the coalition are able to network with each other, share information, and mobilize their members with unprecedented speed. As a result, the new global NGOs have emerged as effective political actors who are independent of traditional national or international institutions. They constitute a new kind of global civil society.

This new form of alternative global community, sharing core values and making extensive use of electronic networks in addition to frequent human contacts, is one of the most important legacies of the sixties. If it succeeds in reshaping economic globalization so as to make it compatible with the values of human dignity and ecological sustainability, the dreams of the "sixties revolution" will have been realized:

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
no need for greed or hunger,
a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

The Roots of Terrorism
Reflections on September 11, One Year Later

September 5, 2002

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, it has become painfully evident that the Bush Administration is either incapable or unwilling to understand the political, economic, and technological roots of the new international terrorism. Sadly, the issues discussed in my article, "Trying to Understand: A Systemic Analysis of International Terrorism," posted on my website almost a year ago, are still as relevant now as they were then.

In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, eloquently reiterates many of the key points made by the political analysts and grassroots activists cited in my original article. I have copied some excerpts from Brzezinski’s op-ed piece below.

Another very inspiring reflection on this issue is the editorial "The Great Denial" by Michael Lerner in the September/October 2002 issue of Tikkun (see http://www.tikkun.org/)

"Confronting Anti-American Grievances"
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
The New York Times, September 1, 2002

Nearly a year after the start of America's war on terrorism, that war faces the real risk of being hijacked by foreign governments with repressive agendas. Instead of leading a democratic coalition, the United States faces the risk of dangerous isolation.… Missing from much of the public debate is discussion of the simple fact that lurking behind every terroristic act is a specific political antecedent. That does not justify either the perpetrator or his political cause. Nonetheless, the fact is that almost all terrorist activity originates from some political conflict and is sustained by it as well.…

In the case of Sept. 11, it does not require deep analysis to note — given the identity of the perpetrators — that the Middle East's political history has something to do with the hatred of Middle Eastern terrorists for America.… American involvement in the Middle East is clearly the main impulse of the hatred that has been directed at America. … Yet there has been a remarkable reluctance in America to confront the more complex historical dimensions of this hatred. The inclination instead has been to rely on abstract assertions like terrorists "hate freedom" or that their religious background makes them despise Western culture.

To win the war on terrorism, one must therefore set two goals: first to destroy the terrorists and, second, to begin a political effort that focuses on the conditions that brought about their emergence.…

The rather narrow, almost one-dimensional definition of the terrorist threat favored by the Bush administration poses the special risk that foreign powers will also seize upon the word "terrorism" to promote their own agendas… For America, the potential risk is that its nonpolitically defined war on terrorism may thus be hijacked and diverted to other ends. The consequences would be dangerous. If America comes to be viewed by its key democratic allies in Europe and Asia as morally obtuse and politically naïve in failing to address terrorism in its broader and deeper dimensions — and if it is also seen by them as uncritically embracing intolerant suppression of ethnic or national aspirations — global support for America's policies will surely decline. America's ability to maintain a broadly democratic antiterrorist coalition will suffer gravely.…

A victory in the war against terrorism can never be registered in a formal act of surrender. Instead, it will only be divined from the gradual waning of terrorist acts. Any further strikes against Americans will thus be a painful reminder that the war has not been won. Sadly, a main reason will be America's reluctance to focus on the political roots of the terrorist atrocity of Sept. 11.

Trying to Understand
A Systemic Analysis of International Terrorism

October 5, 2001

The horrific terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11 mark the end of an era -- the end of over 200 years of invulnerability on our continent. We had heard fundamentalist rhetoric about "striking at the heart of America" for years, but we took it as empty threats. We did not recognize the emergence of a new weapon on the international stage against which we were defenseless -- the despair-driven, desperate suicide bomber.(Footnote 1)

This new form of international terrorism exposes the dangerous fallacy of a national shield against ballistic missiles. Missile defense is of no use whatsoever when terrorists can turn commercial planes into missiles and their fuel tanks into bombs with the help of simple box cutters.

There is no simple defense against international terrorism, because we live in a complex, globally interconnected world in which linear chains of cause and effect do not exist. To understand this world, we need to think systemically -- in terms of relationships, connections, and context.

Understanding international terrorism from a systemic perspective means understanding that its very nature derives from a series of political, economic, and technological problems that are all interconnected. This terrorism is not "mindless," and it is not directed against our "freedom and democracy," as our government wants us to believe.

Terrorism is always a weapon of the politically disempowered and desperate who feel that they are unable to voice their grievances through conventional political processes. In order to combat them effectively, we need to clearly understand the terrorists' frustration.(2)

The most important deficiency in U.S. counterterrorism policy has been the failure to address the root causes of terrorism. Indeed, there is a tendency to treat terrorism as pure evil in a vacuum, to say that changes in foreign policy intended to reduce it will only "reward" terrorists….

But the U.S. should, for its own self-protection, expand efforts to reduce the pathology of hatred before it mutates into even greater danger. Conditions that breed violence and terrorism can at least be moderated through efforts to resolve conflicts and through assistance for economic development, education, and population control.(3)

Understanding the multiple and interdependent roots of terrorism will be the only way to reduce its impact and frequency, and thus to increase our long-term security. Indeed, we owe such a systemic analysis and corresponding action to the victims of the attacks of September 11, as British prime minister Tony Blair has eloquently stated:

[People] don't want revenge. They want something better in memory of their loved ones. I believe their memorial can and should be greater than simply the punishment of the guilty. It is that out of the shadow of this evil should emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found; hope amongst all nations of a new beginning where we seek to resolve differences in a calm and ordered way; greater understanding between nations and between faiths; and above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, not the violence and savagery of the fanatic.(4)

A careful exploration of the roots of terrorism shows in particular that much of Islamic fundamentalism is related to the role of the United States in the Middle East and that extremist Islamic movements often arise in direct response to American policies. Of course, the United States is not the only power to blame. There is the insidious legacy of European colonialism; yet American policies since World War II have contributed significantly to the recent rise of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.(5)

Understandably, the first reaction to the horrendous attacks on the United States is the desire to "strike back." But responding to terrorism with violence, rather than dealing with the context from which it emerged, will continue to create more violence. We must recognize that military actions will not succeed in eliminating the rise of militant Islamic movements. On the contrary, they will result in the deaths of innocent Muslim civilians that will further fuel anti-American hatred.

Retaliatory strikes against suspected terrorist targets trigger further retaliation from terrorists and thus escalate the cycle of violence, as Israel’s experience has shown. Surgical strikes make sense only when there are military targets with heavy equipment, which the terrorist networks do not have. Moreover, such strikes are often based on faulty intelligence, which further exacerbates their negative effects. Indeed, whenever the United States has carried out military attacks on terrorist targets in recent years, the attacks have failed or backfired.(6)

Since this terrorism is international, the response has to be international as well. The goals of the coalitions and cooperation within the international community cannot be limited to identifying and capturing the terrorists, as they currently are, but must be extended to addressing the underlying systemic problems. This will be the only way to marginalize the terrorists and strengthen our security in the long run.

The terrorism we are concerned with is directed against the United States, and hence the attempt to understand its roots has to begin with the understanding of America’s image in the world. This image is multi-faceted. It includes many positive aspects of our society -- such as individual liberty, cultural diversity, and economic opportunity -- as well as the great enthusiasm for American technology, fashion, sports, and entertainment, especially among the world’s youth.

On the other hand, the United States is seen by many as the driving force of a new form of global capitalism that is supported by military force and is often socially unjust and environmentally destructive. Indeed, the buildings attacked by the terrorists on September 11 were proud symbols of American economic power and military might.

The new global capitalism, often referred to as "the new economy," emerged during the last decade of the twentieth century. It is based on sophisticated information and communication technologies and is structured around global networks of financial flows. In spite of great social and cultural diversity, today’s world is organized, for the first time in history, according to a common set of economic rules.(7)

These rules are the so-called "free trade" rules that the World Trade Organization (WTO) imposes on its member states. In the mid-1990s this framework for economic globalization was hailed by corporate leaders and politicians as a new order that would benefit all nations, producing worldwide economic expansion whose wealth would "trickle down" to all. However, it soon became apparent to increasing numbers of grassroots activists, both in the United States and around the world, that the new economic rules established by the WTO were manifestly unsustainable and were producing a multitude of interconnected fatal consequences — a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, a disastrous maldistribution of wealth, and increasing poverty and alienation around the world.(8)

It is not difficult to see how these stark global inequities can bring forth desperate, marginalized people who express their hatred and frustration in terrorist suicide attacks. However, there is a nonviolent alternative. During the past years, a powerful worldwide coalition of hundreds of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has emerged, which demands greater transparency in the establishment of market rules and independent reviews of the ensuing social and environmental consequences. More recently, this so-called "Seattle Coalition" has begun to propose a whole new set of trade policies that would profoundly change the global economy.(9) After the tragic events of September 11, this work is more important than ever.

To understand the political context of the recent terrorist attacks, we need to look specifically at the U.S. role in the Middle East. The common view in this country is that we have assumed the role of peacemakers in the region. In other parts of the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the view is quite different. There is widespread anti-American sentiment, based on a number of concerns. They include resentment against

• our uncritical support for the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians and for state-sponsored assassinations;
• our support of undemocratic and repressive Arab governments, in particular that of Saudi Arabia;
• ten years of sanctions and military attacks against Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of half a million children;
• our massive military presence in the region (seen by Muslim fundamentalists, especially in Saudi Arabia, as the presence of infidels in the holy land of Islam), as well as our role as the largest supplier of arms in the Middle East.

These grievances have contributed to the rise of several radical Islamic movements, including Hamas and al Qaida, the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. Now, why do we support repressive regimes, ignore UN resolutions, and promote violence in the Middle East? The answer, in one word, is "oil." In the view of our government, the access to Persian Gulf oil is essential to the security of the United States. In the Gulf region, like in many other areas in the world, our policies are primarily resource-oriented, designed to support our wasteful economy. Thus, the U.S. role in the Middle East and its contribution to the rise of radical Islamic movements are inextricably linked to our misguided energy policies.

To assure American access to natural resources around the world, the U.S. government continually tries to "stabilize" various regions and, in doing so, has often supported undemocratic and repressive regimes. This has included the training and financing of death squads and other support to governments that have engaged in widespread terrorism against their own populations. Ironically, the U.S. has at times supported hard-line Islamic movements. Indeed, some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists today, including many followers of Osama bin Laden, were originally trained by the CIA.(10)

Our support of repressive governments has helped to encourage underground, often violent, opposition, and the fact that we ourselves have sponsored terrorist attacks undercuts our credibility in the fight against terrorism.

To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists, we need to pay special attention to the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. This relationship is based on an extraordinary bargain, concluded in 1945 between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud, according to which Saudi Arabia grants the U.S. unlimited and perpetual access to its oil fields (which contain 25% of the world’s known oil reserves!) in exchange for protection of the Saudi royal family against its enemies, both external and internal. This bargain has shaped American foreign and military policy for almost half a century, during which we have protected a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia that blatantly disregards basic human rights and tramples democracy.(11)

The main purpose of the Gulf war in 1991, originally code-named "Desert Shield," was not to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to protect Saudi Arabia from a possible attack and to guarantee U.S. access to the Saudi oil fields. Since then, the U.S. has maintained and steadily expanded its military presence in the Gulf. In addition we also defend the Saudi regime against its internal enemies. The Saudi Arabian National Guard, which protects the royal family, is almost entirely armed, trained, and managed by the United States.

The goal of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network is to drive the U.S. out of the Gulf region and to replace the corrupt Saudi regime by what they consider an "authentic" Islamic state. Such a state would be modeled after that of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, which is many times more repressive than the current Saudi regime, especially in its barbarious treatment of women. Nevertheless, as long as we continue to support the totalitarian system in Saudi Arabia, our support will fuel anti-American hatred.

To summarize, at the core of the multiple causes of the recent terrorist attacks against the United States lies the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and our support of the repressive Saudi regime. This presence, in turn, is a consequence of our dependence on Saudi oil, due to many years of misguided energy policies.

Bin Laden's terrorist network has declared an anti-American jihad, a religious war, and finds it easy to recruit volunteers among Muslims who feel frustrated and helpless about other aspects of the U.S. role in the Middle East. These aspects include, in particular, the U.S. support of the Israeli occupation of Arab land and the dispossession of Palestinians; Muslim casualties of U.S.-supported military actions and assassinations, and especially the death of large numbers of civilians in Iraq.

At a deeper level, the extremists often receive sympathy from Islamic fundamentalists who are keenly aware of present global inequities and are struggling to preserve their cultural identity in the face of U.S.-led economic globalization.

The systemic understanding of the background of extremist Islamic terrorism calls for a multi-faceted anti-terrorist strategy. The immediate goal, obviously, is to identify and capture the perpetrators and supporters of the terrorist attacks against the United States, and to bring them to justice before an international court. Since the extension and scope of this terrorism is international, it requires sustained international police work, based on extensive and widespread cooperation among the international community.

This means, in turn, that the United States will have to reverse its recent isolationist stance and become a responsible member of the international community. Instead of weakening or walking away from a series of international treaties and conventions -- including the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the World Criminal Court, and the UN Conference on Racism -- the Bush Administration needs to realize that cooperation with the United Nations and other multilateral agencies will be vital to increase our own strength and security. Because of our rich cultural diversity, we should be in an ideal position to become active citizens of the world. One fifth of today's Americans, or their parents, were born in other parts of the world; five million of us are Muslims.

In this international collaboration, it will be especially important to enlist the help of Islamic states in portraying the extremists as enemies of Islam, because no true Muslim would take thousands of innocent lives in such reprehensible acts. At the same time, our leaders need to help counteract American religious stereotypes. We need to make it clear that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims opposes terrorism and religious intolerance.

In the long run, the United States will be able to reduce the terrorist threats only if it adopts a series of policy shifts to deal with the legitimate grievances that often underlie terrorist acts. Systemic thinking means shifting our focus from attempting to crush terrorist movements to pursuing policies that discourage their emergence.

The following two policy shifts would go a long way toward increasing our national security.

1. A reassessment of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, including pressure on the Saudi regime to move toward democratization and the provision of basic human rights.

2. Promoting a peace agreement that includes the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a safe and secure Palestinian state together with the guaranteed existence of an equally safe and secure Israeli state, each with its own territorial integrity. This would bring the United States in line with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and with the views of virtually the entire international community. In the words of the Israeli novelist and peace activist Amos Oz,

With or without Islamic fundamentalism, with or without Arab terrorism, there is no justification whatsoever for the lasting occupation and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel. We have no right to deny Palestinians their natural right to self-determination.(12)

In order to carry out these shifts of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of energy policy from the current heavy emphasis on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and conservation is not only imperative for moving toward ecological sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our security.

More generally, we need to realize that the concept of security needs to be broadened to include considerations such as food security, the security of a healthy environment, social justice, and cultural integrity. In our globally interconnected world, the concept of "national security" is outdated; there can only be global security. A global economic system based on inequity, overconsumption, waste, and exploitation is inherently violent and insecure. An economy based on local self-sufficiency, decentralized renewable energy sources, and the continual cycling of materials will be ecologically and socially sustainable and thus globally secure.

The shift to such a sustainable and secure economy is absolutely feasible with technologies that are available today.(13) In particular, the recent development of efficient hydrogen fuel cells promises to inaugurate a new era in energy production -- the "hydrogen economy." A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water -- and nothing else! This makes hydrogen the ultimate clean fuel. At present, several companies around the world are racing to be the first to produce fuel cell systems to supply electricity for our homes and commercial buildings.

At the same time, car companies are developing hydrogen-powered hybrid-electric cars that will revolutionize the automobile industry. The gradual replacement of the U.S. car fleet with these "hypercars" would eventually save all the oil OPEC now sells and, in addition, would reduce America’s CO2 emissions by about two thirds! Moreover, if a hydrogen tanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, this would have no adverse environmental effects, nor could a hydrogen-fueled airplane be used as a bomb. In both cases, the hydrogen would escape rapidly into the air on impact.

The hydrogen economy will eventually be realized, because it features superior technologies -- more economical, safer, and ecologically sustainable. However, this development could be accelerated dramatically with massive investments by the federal government. Such investments would not only bring great environmental and health benefits, but would also significantly increase our security. Moreover, massive federal investments to put a hydrogen infrastructure in place would create tens of thousands of jobs and would give our sagging economy a tremendous boost.

The obstacles that stand in the way of a secure and sustainable future are neither conceptual nor technical. All we need is the moral and political will. To quote Tony Blair once more,

This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us…. Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to provide prosperity to all. Yet science can’t make that choice for us. Only the moral power of a world acting as a community can…. For those people who lost their lives on 11 September and those that mourn them; now is the time for the strength to build that community. Let that be their memorial.(14)

1 See Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed People," The Independent, September 12, 2001.

2 See Stephen Zunes, "International Terrorism," Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org), September 2001.

3 Philip C. Wilcox Jr., "The Terror," New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001.

5 See Stephen Zunes, "U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam," Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org),
June 2001.

8 See Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (eds.), The Case Against the Global Economy, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1996.

11 See Michael Klare, "Asking Why," Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org), September 2001.

12 Amos Oz, "Struggling Against Fanaticism," New York Times, September 14, 2001.

13 See Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism, Little Brown, New York, 1999.

Fritjof Capra
THE IMMUNE SYSTEM OUR SECOND BRAIN
In this column, the author will explore the
implementations of the new understanding
of life presented in his book, The Web of Life.

For an outline of this new conceptual framework,
see Capra's 1995 lecture at Schumacher College,
published in Resurgence 178.

ONE OF THE MOST revolutionary aspects of the emerging systems theory of life is the new conception of mind, or cognition, it implies. This new conception was proposed by Gregory Bateson and elaborated more extensively by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in a theory known as the Santiago theory of cognition.'

The central insight of the Santiago theory is the identification of cognition, the process of knowing, with the process of life. Cognition, according to Maturana and Varela, is the activity involved in the self-generation and self-perpetuation of living systems. In other words, cognition is the very process of life.

It is obvious that we are dealing here with a radical expansion of the concept of cognition and, implicitly, the concept of mind. In this new view, cognition involves the entire process of life - including perception, emotion, and behaviour - and does not necessarily require a brain and a nervous system. At the human level, however, cognition includes language, conceptual thought, and all the other attributes of human consciousness.

The Santiago theory of cognition, in my view, is the first scientific theory that really overcomes the Cartesian division of mind and matter, and will thus have the most far-reaching implications. Mind and matter no longer appear to belong to two separate categories but are seen as representing two complementary aspects of the phenomenon of life - the process aspect and the structure aspect. At all levels of life, beginning with the simplest cell, mind and matter, process and structure are inseparably connected. Thus, for the first time, we have a scientific theory that unifies mind, matter and life.

Let me illustrate the conceptual advance represented by this unified view with a question that has confused scientists and philosophers for over a hundred years: What is the relationship between the mind and the brain? Neuroscientists have known since the nineteenth century that brain structures and mental functions are intimately connected, but the exact relationship between mind and brain always remained a mystery.

In the Santiago theory the relationship between mind and brain is simple and clear. Descartes' characterization of mind as the "thinking thing" (res cogitans) is finally abandoned. Mind is not a thing but a process - the process of cognition, which is identified with the process of life. The brain is a specific structure through which this process operates. The relationship between mind and brain, therefore, is one between process and structure.

The brain, moreover, is by no means the only structure involved in the process of cognition. In the human organism, as in the organisms of all vertebrates, the immune system is increasingly being recognized as a network that is as complex and interconnected as the nervous system and serves equally important co-ordinating functions.

Classical immunology sees the immune system as the body's defence system, outwardly directed and often described in terms of military metaphors - armies of white blood cells, generals, soldiers, etc. Recent discoveries by Francisco Varela and his colleagues at the University of Paris are seriously challenging this conception. In fact, some researchers now believe that the classical view with its military metaphors has been one of the main stumbling- blocks in our understanding of auto-immune diseases such as AIDS.

Instead of being concentrated and interconnected through anatomical structures like the nervous system, the immune system is dispersed in the lymph fluid, permeating every single tissue. Its components - a class of cells called lymphocytes, popularly known as white blood cells - move around very rapidly and bind chemically to each other. The lymphocytes are an extremely diverse group of cells. Each type is distinguished by specific molecular markers, called "antibodies", sticking out from their surfaces. The human body contains billions of different types of white blood cell, with an enormous ability to bind chemically to any molecular profile in their environment. According to traditional immunology, the lymphocytes identify an intruding agent, the antibodies attach themselves to it and, by doing so, neutralize it.

Recent research has shown that under normal conditions the antibodies circulating in the body bind to many (if not all) types of cell, including themselves. The entire system looks much more like a net- work, more like people talking to each other, than soldiers looking out for an enemy. Gradually, immunologists have been forced to shift their perception from an immune system to an immune network.

This shift in perception presents a big problem for the classical view. If the immune system is a network whose components bind to each other, and if antibodies are meant to eliminate whatever they bind to, we should all be destroying ourselves. Obviously, we are not.

The immune system seems to be able to distinguish between its own body's cells and foreign agents, between self and non-self. But since, in the classical view, for an antibody to recognize a foreign agent means binding to it chemically and thereby neutralizing it, it remains mysterious how the immune system can recognize its own cells.

Varela and his colleagues argue that the immune system needs to be understood as an autonomous, cognitive network which is responsible for the body's "molecular identity". By interacting with one another and with the other body cells, the lymphocytes continually regulate the number of cells and their molecular profiles. Rather than merely reacting against foreign agents, the immune system serves the important function of regulating the organism's cellular and molecular repertoire.

From the perspective of the Santiago theory, this regulatory function is part of the immune system s process of cognition. When foreign molecules enter the body, the resulting response is not their automatic destruction but regulation of their levels within the system's other cognitive activities. The response will vary and will depend upon the entire context of the network.

When immunologists inject large amounts of a foreign agent into the body, as they do in standard animal experiments, the immune system reacts with the massive defensive response described in the classical theory. However, this is a highly contrived laboratory situation. In its natural surroundings, an animal does not receive large amounts of harmful substances. The small amounts that do enter its body are incorporated naturally into the ongoing regulatory activities of its immune network.

With this understanding of the immune system as a cognitive, self-organizing and self-regulating network, the puzzle of the self/non-self distinction is easily resolved. The immune system simply does not and needs not distinguish between body cells and foreign agents, because both are subject to the same regulatory processes. However, when the invading foreign agents are so massive that they cannot be incorporated into the regulatory network, as for example in the case of infections, they will trigger specific mechanisms in the immune system that mount a defensive response.

The field of "cognitive immunology" is still in its infancy, and the self-organizing properties of immune networks are by no means well understood. However, some of the scientists active in this growing field of research have already begun to speculate about exciting clinical applications to the treatment of auto-immune diseases. Future therapeutic strategies are likely to be based on the understanding that auto- immune diseases reflect a failure in the cognitive operation of the immune network and may involve various novel techniques designed to reinforce the network by boosting its connectivity.

Such techniques, however will require a much deeper understanding of the rich dynamics of immune networks before they can be applied effectively. In the long run, the discoveries of cognitive immunology promise to be tremendously important for the whole field of health and healing. In Varela's opinion, a sophisticated psychosomatic ("mind-body") view of health will not develop until we understand the nervous system and the immune system as two interacting cognitive systems, two "brains" in continuous conversation.

THE HORRIFIC terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11 mark the end of an era the end of over 200 years of invulnerability on the US continent. We had heard fundamentalist rhetoric about "striking at the heart of America" for years, but we took it as an empty threat. We did not recognize the emergence of a new weapon on the international stage against which we were powerless the desperate, reckless suicide bomber.

Understanding international terrorism from a systemic perspective means understanding that its very nature derives from a series of political, economic and technological problems that are all interconnected. Terrorism is always a weapon of the politically disempowered, who feel that they are unable to voice their grievances through conventional political processes. In order to combat them effectively, we need to understand clearly the terrorists frustration.

This does not mean that we should shrink from capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice. Their crimes are abhorrent beyond words. But we must learn to distinguish between, on the one hand, their criminal methods and fundamentalist ideologies and, on the other hand, the grievances that drive them into committing such desperate and horrific acts. We cannot fight terrorism effectively without understanding its roots. Indeed, we owe a systemic analysis and corresponding action to the victims of the attacks of 11th September, as Prime Minister Tony Blair stated eloquently in his speech to the Labour Party Conference: "[People] dont want revenge. They want something better in memory of their loved ones. I believe their memorial can and should be greater than simply the punishment of the guilty. It is that out of the shadow of this evil should emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found; hope amongst all nations of a new beginning where we seek to resolve differences in a calm and ordered way; greater understanding between nations and between faiths; and above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, not the violence and savagery of the fanatic."

The terrorism we are concerned with is directed against the United States, and hence the attempt to understand its roots has to begin with the understanding of Americas image in the world. This image is multi-faceted. It includes many positive aspects of our society such as individual liberty, cultural diversity and economic opportunity, as well as the great enthusiasm for American technology, fashion, sport and entertainment, especially among the worlds youth.

To understand the political context of the recent terrorist attacks, we need to look specifically at the US role in the Middle East. The common view in the United States is that it has assumed the role of peacemaker in the region, but in other parts of the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the view is quite different. There is widespread anti-American sentiment, based on a number of concerns. They include resentment against:

US uncritical support for the Israeli occupation of Arab land, for the dispossession of Palestinians and for state-sponsored assassinations;

US support of undemocratic and repressive Arab governments, in particular that of Saudi Arabia;

ten years of sanctions and military attacks against Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of half a million children;

the US massive military presence in the region (seen by Muslim fundamentalists, especially in Saudi Arabia, as the presence of infidels in the holy land of Islam), as well as its role as the largest supplier of arms in the Middle East.

These grievances have contributed to the rise of several radical Islamic movements.

NOW, WHY DOES the United States support repressive regimes, ignore un resolutions, and promote violence in the Middle East? The answer, in one word, is oil. In the view of the US government, the access to Persian Gulf oil is essential to Americas security. The US role in the Middle East and its contribution to the rise of radical Islamic movements are inextricably linked to its energy policies.

To assure American access to natural resources around the world, the US government continually tries to stabilize various regions and, in doing so, has often supported undemocratic and repressive regimes. Ironically, the US has at times supported hard-line Islamic movements. Indeed, some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists, including followers of Osama bin Laden, were originally trained by the CIA.

To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists, we need to pay special attention to the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. This relationship is based on an extraordinary bargain, concluded in 1945 between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud, according to which Saudi Arabia grants the US unlimited and perpetual access to its oil fields (which contain 25% of the worlds known oil reserves) in exchange for protection of the Saudi royal family against its enemies, both external and internal. This bargain has shaped American foreign and military policy for almost half a century, during which the US has protected a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia that blatantly disregards basic human rights and tramples democracy.

The main purpose of the Gulf war in 1991, originally code-named Desert Shield, was not to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to protect Saudi Arabia from a possible attack and to guarantee US access to the Saudi oil fields. Since then, the US has maintained and steadily expanded its military presence in the Gulf. In addition it also defends the Saudi regime against its internal enemies. The Saudi Arabian National Guard, which protects the royal family, is almost entirely armed, trained and managed by the United States.

The goal of Osama bin Ladens terrorist network is to drive the US out of the Gulf region and to replace the corrupt Saudi regime by what they consider an authentic Islamic state. Such a state would be modelled after that of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, which was many times more repressive than the current Saudi regime, especially in its barbarous treatment of women. Nevertheless, as long as the US continues to support the totalitarian system in Saudi Arabia, that will fuel anti-American hatred.

This means, in turn, that the United States will have to reverse its recent isolationist stance and become a responsible member of the international community. Instead of weakening or walking away from a series of international treaties and conventions including the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the World Criminal Court, and the UN Conference on Racism the Bush Administration needs to realize that co-operation with the United Nations and other multilateral agencies will be vital to increase our own strength and security. Because of our rich cultural diversity, we should be in an ideal position to become active citizens of the world. One fifth of Americans, or their parents, were born in other parts of the world; five million of us are Muslims.

A reassessment of US policy in the Persian Gulf, including pressure on the Saudi regime to move toward democratization and the provision of basic human rights.

Promoting a peace agreement that includes the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a safe and secure Palestinian state together with the guaranteed existence of an equally safe and secure Israeli state, each with its own territorial integrity. This would bring the United States in line with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and with the views of virtually the entire international community.

In order to carry out these shifts of US foreign policy in the Middle East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of energy policy from the current heavy emphasis on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and conservation is not only imperative for moving toward ecological sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our security.

More generally, we need to realize that the concept of security needs to be broadened to include considerations such as food security, the security of a healthy environment, social justice and cultural integrity. A global economic system based on inequity, overconsumption, waste and exploitation is inherently violent and insecure. An economy based on local self-sufficiency, decentralized renewable energy sources, and the continual cycling of materials will be ecologically and socially sustainable and thus globally secure.

The shift to such a sustainable and secure economy is absolutely feasible with technologies that are available today. In particular, the recent development of efficient hydrogen fuel cells promises to inaugurate a new era in energy production the hydrogen economy. A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water and nothing else! This makes hydrogen the ultimate clean fuel. At present, several companies around the world are racing to be the first to produce fuel cell systems to supply electricity for our homes and commercial buildings.

At the same time, car companies are developing hydrogen-powered hybrid electric cars that will revolutionize the automobile industry. The gradual replacement of the US car fleet with these hypercars would eventually save all the oil OPEC now sells and, in addition, would reduce Americas co2 emissions by about two-thirds.

The hydrogen economy will eventually be realized, because it features superior technologies more economical, safer, and ecologically sustainable. However, this development could be accelerated dramatically with massive investments by the federal government. Such investments would not only bring great environmental and health benefits, but would also significantly increase our security. Moreover, massive federal investments to put a hydrogen infrastructure in place would create tens of thousands of jobs and would give the sagging US economy a tremendous boost.

The obstacles that stand in the way of a secure and sustainable future are neither conceptual nor technical. All we need is the moral and political will. To quote Tony Blair once more, "This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to provide prosperity to all. Yet science cant make that choice for us. Only the moral power of a world acting as a community can

For those people who lost their lives on 11th September and those that mourn them; now is the time for the strength to build that community. Let that be their memorial."