The Environmental Endgame:
Mainstream Economics, Ecological Disaster, and Human Survival.
by Robert Nadeau.
ISBN: 0813538122
This book tries to warn society that, collectively, we are moving dangerously close to a certain, global, environmental catastrophe. By claiming apocalyptic doom as the result of inaction, the author of this book states that the first step society must take in order to evade a large-scale ecological disaster is to stop the distinction we are making between issues that are related to the environment and those related to consumerism; there is no dichotomous duel. The idea of treating the environment as a foreign, alien world, inhospitable to the lives we have become accustomed to, is what is causing its degradation. The author makes the case that without direct mediation on this topic, the apocalyptic vision of humanity, which many people are disseminating, will come to fruition.
_____________________________________________
Ever since the apocalyptic vision of Saint John the Divine described in the book of Revelation was written, the story of the apocalypse has been drawn upon by political leaders, religious fanatics, and now environmentalists to invoke fear in the general public as a means of gaining support for their own visions of societal progress and control.
The beginning of the twenty-first century is no different in regards to different interest groups using the 'end of the world' scenario as a tool to push their own agendas forward. Whether or not doomsday happens is not necessarily important. The important fact, here, is that many of the signs written about in Revelation are happening today, fueling religious fanatics to begin prophecizing the return of their god to earth who will sort things out for all of humanity in general. This is irresponsible worship because it makes human beings powerless when it comes to controlling their own destiny.
Ever since science became part of almost every aspect of mainstream society, people of all walks of life have found it increasingly more difficult to believe in the fact that some supernatural power will flash in ‘to save the day'. Granted, entertainment and religion instill in us a desire to be saved, but ultimately, we are left to come up with our own scenarios for survival in order to remedy the serious societal trouble in which we have placed ourselves.
In the recent past, end-of-the-world scenarios proliferated surrounding Y2K in regards to computer equipment failures. Life, as we knew it, was supposed to come to an end; no more banking, stock market, home computers, or appliances. Even people’s cars were supposed to short out and stop functioning. Of course, this did not happen.
Today, we are well past Y2K and realize the silliness of the whole panic, as well as the media's role in creating that panic, but looming on our horizon are more serious questions. Is global warming and climate change for real? Are the past ten years of natural disasters a sign of the times and an indicator of what is to come? Will my family and my way of life survive the ‘day of reckoning’ when it comes to a town near me?
Globally, religious fanatics are currently in a heightened state of spiritual awareness, many believing that this time, now, is unique in its influence upon the end of their respective doctrinal fantasies. This is happening in many of the world’s most powerful religions, and it leaves the general public across the world open to change. With change comes opposition to change. This opposition can come in many forms, and unfortunately, the form it most often comes in is intolerance of some way, shape, or form.
Many people are using the doctrines and dogmas of their religions to grasp tightly on to what is familiar. They want change to happen in the world, but they want it to come in the form of the world changing to embrace their particular set of beliefs. They want the change to be familiar.
The dichotomous struggle between change and intolerance is what is fueling the apocalyptic assault in our printed news and on our airwaves. The thought goes somewhat like this: "Anyone outside of my group’s frame of reference is somehow deserving of the 'wrath of my god’." From an objective standpoint, this reasoning is preposterous because we are all acting from the same reference point, that is, human beings on earth.
Religions do not have a monopoly on the doomsday scenarios. Many environmentalists have also begun to invoke this end-of-the-world scenario as a prophecy that will come true if society does not adopt more sustainable methods. They also claim that more conflict and warfare over depleting fossil fuel reserves is inevitable in a world that is shaped by non-renewable energy sources. By invoking visions of the apocalypse, environmentalists hope that they will be able to push people into a more responsible lifestyle. What they are doing is fueling the fanaticism even further and, ultimately, driving a stake through the environmental movement's heart. When there is no room for hope, people will entrench themselves in their respective bunkers and try to survive the storm.
Apocalyptic scenarios aside, Environmentalists, unlike religious fanatics, have the natural world to back up their claims of an ailing planet. In truth, all the Environmentalists want is for the natural earth to be allowed a chance to sustain life; there is no ulterior motive or political agenda associated with the dying environmental movement. We now live in a world where entire ecosystems are failing and species of various sorts are going extinct at unprecedented rates. There is no "wrath of god" in these scenarios. For most all of these scenarios, there is the simple fact of cause and effect. Load the atmosphere with CO2, and the earth will get warmer. Overuse pesticides and other industrial chemicals, and more life on earth will die. Drill for oil and natural gas in geologically unstable regions of the world, and there will be more earthquakes. The impact site always seems, directly, on the opposite side of the globe.
Inherent to this responsible, more scientific reasoning that environmentalists tout as the basis for their economic belief system is the idea of balanced wealth. Environmentalists make the claim that the current economic world is set up to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. The statistics show that the majority of the wealth in the world is in the hands of a minority of the global population.
This is a formula for disaster because all natural systems, ultimately, have to reset themselves back to a state of equilibrium; the more lopsided these systems are, the more drastic the swing toward a balanced state becomes.
In most cases, those who are wealthy do not live in the environments where their money is being made. They are able to insulate themselves from the natural world and, therefore, are shielded from the effects of environmental degradation. For example, people in cities want more natural gas to power their lifestyles, but the wilderness along the western slope of the Rocky Mountains is being decimated in order to meet that demand. Just outside the perception of people living in urban centers is a disaster of dramatic magnitude.
Hundreds of species of plants and animals are going extinct every day across the globe as a result of our pursuit of concentrated wealth. America consumes over one-quarter of the world’s oil and is responsible for emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other country in the world; it has done this for several decades in a row. (China just recently, in 2008, surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions for the number one slot.) America is able to continue with this irresponsible lifestyle solely because of the level of privilege that is inherent with living here. There are no genocides, wars, or tsunamis going on within our borders. Most all of America is insulated from the environmental tragedies of the rest of the world. Katrina was America's most recent window into what a large scale disaster looks like; how could something like that happen in America?
Long ago, some two and a half centuries, America embraced the idea of free markets; these kinds of markets allow buyers and sellers to stumble upon the rules of bargaining as ‘the game’ progresses. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with this kind of market; perhaps, some might argue, that it yields the best opportunity to adapt to changing conditions in real time.
There is a problem, though, that surfaces when 99% of the world’s wealth is being concentrated into 1% of the population. To use wind energy as an example of what the problems look like in these kinds of scenarios of privilege; consider NIMBYs, or Not-In-My-Back-Yarders. These kinds of people are all for renewable energy until it has to be put up in their own line of sight, then they are adamantly opposed to it. This kind of reaction is similar to the political muscle behind the building of new nuclear reactors in order to power America into the future. If nuclear reactors are really safe for domestic energy, then let’s see how close to wealthy neighborhoods they are built. Most likely, they will be built in other, less influential people's backyards, and the wealthy will continue to live without seeing them or being impacted by the toxic waste. The problems with these kinds of systems is that when the suffering always takes place somewhere else, it is easy to forget about it or write it off as a aberration. The wealthy get richer, the less privileged have to suffer more. The system must be defended at all costs, though.
This is what the wealthy nations in the world are doing. They are acting as though their actions do not play a role in the suffering of the less privileged people in the world. They are acting as though, somehow, their citizenry is entitled to this privilege, and under the current economic systems in place, anyone can join 'the club' and start ignoring the fundamental problems just as they do. Everyone was born with the same opportunity to be wealthy, right?...this is the thinking.
So, what happens when the disasters begin to strike in America’s back yard? Will there begin to develop a more responsible approach to our economic systems then? Will the distribution of wealth in the world disseminate out over a wider range of global regions, ethnicities, and citizenries? Will politics change to represent the needs of the people instead of representing only the needs of economics in general and its most wealthiest players?
There is so much room for growth in the future. Virtually every aspect of responsible living has only just begun. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where children and grandchildren across the world thrive; a world of developing technology and regenerating ecosystems; a world of scientific-based solutions to outdated business models; a world where responsibility outweighs greed?
There is no doomsday here in this book/blog. There are, however, opportunities and countless examples of human ingenuity. Some of these ideas presented here are already changing the world as we know it. Numerous people have decided to try to do something about the apocalypse that others so lazily declare is upon us. Some of us would like to survive the calamities ahead and inherit a world fresh; a world that is new and ready for sound human ingenuity to be woven in to the fabric of nature.
This strand of optimism simply seems like a better idea than just sitting around, watching the governments and religions of the world go to war against each other.
These ideas here serve the purpose of giving hope to succeeding generations. Have you ever tried to teach the apocalypse to a bunch of fourth graders? The logic of self-destruction does not make any sense to them. The current future being offered to young people across the world is so full of doom and gloom that it is easy to understand why so many young people today have skewed interests in politics, economics, or religion.
Young people respond to hope and optimism, and so, it is in this role that is thrust upon a new generation of thinkers that we are called upon to offer up a world vision that is not only inspiring, but also sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment