Humanity at Bat; Nature on Deck
Last night Jersey and I were have some good barstool banter about the follies of both the interests of market forces and environmentalism with regards to their ideologies of the Earth and its resources and what we should be doing to use or protect them. Both sides are arguing over whether or not mankind's impact on the planet is acceptable or not for the interests of progress.
Those with just economics in mind tend to be of the mindset (at least currently) that the use of available resources is necessary to progress of humanity, and collateral damage such as extinction, pollution and waste are not serious enough problems to warrant stopping of the wheels of industry, and the popular talk of climate change and fading resources is alarmist claptrap. The intentions of perpetuating civilization is really about perpetuating mankind, whether or not greed is involved. However, the all to common flaw is short-timer's syndrome, the same failing so many investors succumb too like the suckers who lost their shirt in the dot-com boom and bust. When it comes to climate impacts, there is a culture of denial and the mentality is to get while the getting is good, not realizing that that attitude will only make things more costly later.
On the other side is fanatical environmentalism, which believes that mankind is a scourge that is destroying the planet and that probably it is "too late" to stave off some inevitable Day After Tomorrow doomsday scenario. While its ends of protecting the environment are admirable, the effort is pretty much misguided, particularly when their actions are decidedly misanthropic. That face of environmentalism discredits itself all to often by seeing mankind as the problem that must be stopped, and we all know people that might even take a certain satisfaction if humanity was wiped off the face of the Earth. Even in its more moderate forms, like making choices that have low resource, pollution and waste impacts (possibly the best wisdom and philosophy that can be gleaned from the environmentalists ethos) the intent is spare the Earth from our hunger, not humanity.
What both sides fail to address is that the middle ground that they both have is the key to our survival, but in their deadlock they are in fact wasting time that could be spent thinking of ways to perpetuate the healthy progress of all mankind.
First off, there are the self destructive aspects of both philosophies. Both the cutthroat capitalist and the fanatical environmentalist put the quality of life of future generations as secondary to their own agendas. The capitalist says that preservation of the system at all costs is the only way civilization will progress, which is half right, but living in a hostile environment would be far too costly to manage and global economic collapse would ultimately ensue. The dirty truth is that person would rather deny any talk of climate change and future peril to continue to make immediate money. Most people don't want to believe a truth that upturns their entire value system unless it is holding a knife at their throat, so you can't be that surprised by this mentality, and furthermore, you can resent them for it. That is just human behavior. The fanatical environmentalist would rather see the world stop all industry and return to living off nuts and berries, not realizing how much of our existence, not to mention survival, depends on mechanization. Even in communes where people live a lifestyle that they believe is ultra low impact on the Earth, where do think those gallium-arsenide solar panels and rechargeable lead-acid batteries get made? And what of modern medicine and food production? Ultimately, the loss of human life and the retrograde action in civilization may be just as bad as environmental collapse.
So what is missing?
The Earth, geologically speaking, is tough. It is humanity that is fragile. The lifetimes of 100 human generations is just a sneeze in terms of the lifespan of this planet. We could nuke humanity of the face of the Earth and in a couple of million years or less it would be like we were never here. The point that needs to be addressed honestly is what can we do to stop the damage to the environment so that humanity doesn't suffer? Because both sides of the argument, while very capable in their areas of expertise, are in an intractable argument because they both seem to be missing the big picture. To perpetuate a growth economy long term, humanity must avoid massive risk of reaping short term rewards that have unknown and possibly perilous environmental consequences long term. To perpetuate a healthy planet with healthy people on it, we must use science and efficient manufacturing and resource use to make better use of what we have, and understand the subtle connections that remain between the human race and the rest of the natural world. We have to become masters of anticipation. Because there is so much podium-thumping and not enough focus on knowledge sharing, the idea of having a rational discourse on the subject seems impossible because there is a near-religious level of diatribe slinging in both camps. Both sides can agree upon the one sole agenda - to truly protect the future of mankind. We need to understand exactly what sacrifices need to be made now in order for us to prosper in the future. We should not be afraid to be conservative either. Maybe that means making the production of things more expensive short term, and maybe it does mean a lot people lose jobs, but when we get used to planning for the understanding of including the long term costs of things in our economic models, we will adjust and prosper as we have been able to do all along.
I do believe that humanity will get this message, but unfortunately it will probably not come until after we lose something precious, making life on earth a hasher place once that things have changed. Maybe it will be climate change. Maybe it will be mass extinctions. Maybe it will be water shortages. Whatever it is it will be painful, but what will come out of is the awareness that humanity's need to survive at a large scale is tantamount, and that is something that history has shown time and time again that we are good at doing when the time comes. I do believe that humanity will make it. I just think that we often make the lesson harder than it needs to be.
Those with just economics in mind tend to be of the mindset (at least currently) that the use of available resources is necessary to progress of humanity, and collateral damage such as extinction, pollution and waste are not serious enough problems to warrant stopping of the wheels of industry, and the popular talk of climate change and fading resources is alarmist claptrap. The intentions of perpetuating civilization is really about perpetuating mankind, whether or not greed is involved. However, the all to common flaw is short-timer's syndrome, the same failing so many investors succumb too like the suckers who lost their shirt in the dot-com boom and bust. When it comes to climate impacts, there is a culture of denial and the mentality is to get while the getting is good, not realizing that that attitude will only make things more costly later.
On the other side is fanatical environmentalism, which believes that mankind is a scourge that is destroying the planet and that probably it is "too late" to stave off some inevitable Day After Tomorrow doomsday scenario. While its ends of protecting the environment are admirable, the effort is pretty much misguided, particularly when their actions are decidedly misanthropic. That face of environmentalism discredits itself all to often by seeing mankind as the problem that must be stopped, and we all know people that might even take a certain satisfaction if humanity was wiped off the face of the Earth. Even in its more moderate forms, like making choices that have low resource, pollution and waste impacts (possibly the best wisdom and philosophy that can be gleaned from the environmentalists ethos) the intent is spare the Earth from our hunger, not humanity.
What both sides fail to address is that the middle ground that they both have is the key to our survival, but in their deadlock they are in fact wasting time that could be spent thinking of ways to perpetuate the healthy progress of all mankind.
First off, there are the self destructive aspects of both philosophies. Both the cutthroat capitalist and the fanatical environmentalist put the quality of life of future generations as secondary to their own agendas. The capitalist says that preservation of the system at all costs is the only way civilization will progress, which is half right, but living in a hostile environment would be far too costly to manage and global economic collapse would ultimately ensue. The dirty truth is that person would rather deny any talk of climate change and future peril to continue to make immediate money. Most people don't want to believe a truth that upturns their entire value system unless it is holding a knife at their throat, so you can't be that surprised by this mentality, and furthermore, you can resent them for it. That is just human behavior. The fanatical environmentalist would rather see the world stop all industry and return to living off nuts and berries, not realizing how much of our existence, not to mention survival, depends on mechanization. Even in communes where people live a lifestyle that they believe is ultra low impact on the Earth, where do think those gallium-arsenide solar panels and rechargeable lead-acid batteries get made? And what of modern medicine and food production? Ultimately, the loss of human life and the retrograde action in civilization may be just as bad as environmental collapse.
So what is missing?
The Earth, geologically speaking, is tough. It is humanity that is fragile. The lifetimes of 100 human generations is just a sneeze in terms of the lifespan of this planet. We could nuke humanity of the face of the Earth and in a couple of million years or less it would be like we were never here. The point that needs to be addressed honestly is what can we do to stop the damage to the environment so that humanity doesn't suffer? Because both sides of the argument, while very capable in their areas of expertise, are in an intractable argument because they both seem to be missing the big picture. To perpetuate a growth economy long term, humanity must avoid massive risk of reaping short term rewards that have unknown and possibly perilous environmental consequences long term. To perpetuate a healthy planet with healthy people on it, we must use science and efficient manufacturing and resource use to make better use of what we have, and understand the subtle connections that remain between the human race and the rest of the natural world. We have to become masters of anticipation. Because there is so much podium-thumping and not enough focus on knowledge sharing, the idea of having a rational discourse on the subject seems impossible because there is a near-religious level of diatribe slinging in both camps. Both sides can agree upon the one sole agenda - to truly protect the future of mankind. We need to understand exactly what sacrifices need to be made now in order for us to prosper in the future. We should not be afraid to be conservative either. Maybe that means making the production of things more expensive short term, and maybe it does mean a lot people lose jobs, but when we get used to planning for the understanding of including the long term costs of things in our economic models, we will adjust and prosper as we have been able to do all along.
I do believe that humanity will get this message, but unfortunately it will probably not come until after we lose something precious, making life on earth a hasher place once that things have changed. Maybe it will be climate change. Maybe it will be mass extinctions. Maybe it will be water shortages. Whatever it is it will be painful, but what will come out of is the awareness that humanity's need to survive at a large scale is tantamount, and that is something that history has shown time and time again that we are good at doing when the time comes. I do believe that humanity will make it. I just think that we often make the lesson harder than it needs to be.
posted by hinder90 at 3:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home