By MICHAEL LÖWY*
International law has not yet incorporated ecocide, and is unlikely to do so with regard to humanicide. However, it is urgent to act, here and now, to stop the race towards the abyss.
1.
O Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) of the Exeter University (United Kingdom) has just published, in January 2025, its new report on climate change, “Current climate policies risk catastrophic societal and economic impacts"This document, of indisputable scientific content, provoked much commentary in the press, which referred almost exclusively to one of the document's predictions: the possibility, in the worst-case scenario, that, from the 2050s onwards, the world GDP will fall to 50% of its current level. For the mainstream media, GDP is the only criterion that really counts, the measure of all things.
For those who, like the Greek humanist philosopher Protagoras (5th century BC), believe that “the human being is the measure of all things”, the report of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries contains another piece of information that is a thousand times more important and worrying: in the worst case scenario – with temperatures 3° above pre-industrial levels – human mortality could reach half of humanity, around four billion people, victims of hunger, lack of water, diseases, “natural” disasters (fires, floods, etc.) and conflicts.
The report Institute and Faculty of Actuaries It can be considered very pessimistic or very optimistic, but it gives an approximate idea of the order of magnitude of the risks arising from climate change. And not in a century: in a few decades.
In international law, we are familiar with the concept of “ecocide”: the destruction or irreparable damage to an ecosystem by an anthropogenic factor, especially by a process of overexploitation of that ecosystem, whether intentional or not (I will use the definition from Wikipedia). We are also very familiar with the concept of genocide: a crime that consists of the intentional, total or partial, concrete elimination of a national, ethnic or religious group as such.
I believe that it is now necessary to introduce a new concept into the debate on international law: “humanicide”, the concrete extermination, total or partial, of humanity as such. Of course, it is not intentional: the criminals do not plan the humanicide, they are simply indifferent to the human consequences of their actions. By conducting their practices according to a single criterion – the maximization of profit – they are the ones responsible for climate change. Who are they? The fossil oligarchy – the formidable interests linked to oil, coal and gas, including not only the exploitation of fossil resources, but also the automobile industry, petrochemicals and many other branches of capitalist production, including the banks that finance them, as well as their political expression: the denialist or inactive governments.
2.
The Attac association uses the term “organised climate crime” to refer to those responsible for the deadly climate catastrophes currently occurring around the world. But if Exeter University’s predictions are confirmed, we will be faced with a level of “climate crime” of an infinitely more serious nature.
International law has not yet incorporated ecocide, and it is unlikely to do so with regard to humanicide. However, it is urgent to act, here and now, to stop the race towards the abyss. Humanicide is not inevitable, and we can still prevent it. But time is running out…
*Michae Lowy is director of research in sociology at Center nationale de la recherche scientifique (CNRS). Author, among other books, of Franz Kafka unsubmissive dreamer (Cem Cabeças Publisher) [https://amzn.to/3VkOlO1]
Translation: Fernando Lima das Neves.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
