Upload
carl-mahlmann
View
96
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 1
The Socio-Psychological Roots
of the Ecological Crisis
by Carl Mahlmann
"Humans are in the world ethically, as no other animal is. …Only humans
can consider, reflect upon, be right or wrong about the way they are in the
world. Ducklings can make mistakes in their imprinting, but this is a mistake
of instinct, not of reason. Ducklings do not cause ecological crises as a result
of mistaken world view.”
-- Holmes Rolston, III
During the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year history there have been countless mass
extinctions; 99 percent of all the life-forms ever to have come into existence have ceased
to be.1 The exact causes of many of these disappearances are unknown. The extinction
of the great reptiles, for instance, which dominated the land one hundred million years
ago, remains a mystery. Scientists don't know exactly what may have precipitated it, but
a popular, though controversial theory, based upon large craters scattered across the
earth's surface, holds that an earth-shattering meteor shower may have occurred sixty-
five million years ago; the effect having been a blanket of debris which was raised into
the atmosphere, preventing life-giving sunlight from reaching the planet's surface,
resulting in the reptiles' and the majority of other species' deaths. Whatever the reason
for their extinction, there's no argument that it was one of natural causes. The next great
mass extinction, however, will not be one of nature's making, but rather, will be that of
Man's. For, in his unrelenting thrust toward "progress," he is upsetting the planet's
natural life-support systems; he is fouling the air he breathes, contaminating the water
he drinks, despoiling the land on which he lives, and exterminating the very life on which
he depends for his own survival. If we are to prevent a self-made catastrophe the likes
of which the world has never before seen, we must have a shift in values -- from those
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 2
oriented in a narrow economic/anthropocentric view of the world to those harbored in a
broader humanistic/ecological perspective.
Astronomer/ecologist George A. Seielstad, in his book Cosmic Ecology: The View from
the Outside In, "...suggests that we have reached a critical moment in human evolution.
One species, Homo sapiens sapiens, has acquired sufficient power to act with global
consequences." 3
"Our future, and that of our cohabitants on the planet, is what we will it to be."4 -- This
indeed being the case (we need only acknowledge the existence of nuclear weaponry to
realize that Seielstad's statement is true), we may, depending on our actions, affect the
future of the entire planet for better, or for worse. Exactly how we wield the global power
at our command is entirely dependent on our values and institutions -- or, if we may
borrow a term from author Richard Dawkins, our memes.* One popular "meme" is that
which holds that man is the center of all -- that is, that all things were created solely for
the use of human beings, and that all things, both living and inanimate, are of value only
insofar as they are instrumental to man: "...deeply embedded in our culture and
consciousness... (anthropocentrism is) ...the idea that humans are the crown of creation,
the source of all value, the measure of all things...,6 and that "...everything in the
universe is arranged to produce and serve humans."7 If we examine the hierarchical
nature of the food chain, we see how this appears to be a sensible postulation. Aristotle,
for instance, rationalized:
"Plants exist to give food to animals, and animals exist to give food to men
...and other conveniences, such as clothing and various tools. Since nature
makes nothing purposeless or in vain, all animals must have been made by
nature for the sake of men."8
Implicit in this concept of instrumentality is the notion of superiority -- the idea that man
occupies a higher station than that of all other living creatures, and that by virtue of his
position, has the right to exercise dominion over nature. Philosopher Immanuel Kant
explains:
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 3
"The fact that man can have the idea 'I' raises him infinitely above all the
other beings on earth. By this he is a person ...that is, a being altogether
different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, which
we can dispose of as we please." 9
Not only may man feel he has the right to dominate nature, but if he is of the Judeo-
Christian persuasion, may interpret that he has the obligation to do so. For it is ordained
in the Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it:
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth." 10
So, it may be said that the meme of anthropocentrism -- which sees man as being the
centerpoint of all creation; as being superior to all other living creatures; as being
nature's master -- is indeed a prevalent one, being upheld by some of the world's most
renowned thinkers, and encouraged by at least two of its major religions.
Another well-rooted meme, interrelated with that of anthropocentrism, is that which holds
that the world is a marketplace, its natural resources commodities whose values are
properly determined in monetary terms: "...deeply rooted in the contemporary social
structure...,"11 this economic perspective of the world views "...the entire world ...(as)
merchandisable objects ...with price tags that are to be sold for profit and economic
expansion."12
It is this way of thinking of things in terms of their profit potential which motivates us to
produce goods in ever newer and more innovative fashions, and which has "...contributed
to the unprecedented wealth and productivity of modern industrial societies." 13
In order to evaluate progress, a society which assigns values to things on a monetary
scale must have a system based on quantitative measures. Our own system, for instance,
depends on numerical tools such as balance sheets and income statements to monitor
progress, and regards the Gross National Product (GNP) "...where everything is boiled
down to dollars and cents...," It "...as a measure of economic welfare, of how 'well off'
we are. Annual increase in the size of the GNP (is) viewed with pride..."15
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 4
When quantitative guides are used to determine states of welfare, those states are
considered as being "better" or "worse" depending on whether they consist of more or
less: "...if everything is reduced to one number, if how we are doing can always be added
up, then the only real value can be 'more,' and growth in some quantity the only
acceptable sign of progress or of doing well.
And so we experience an imperative to grow."16
Thus we come to equate "making progress" and "being better off" with producing,
consuming and accumulating more: "...societies across the ideological spectrum have
persisted in equating quality of life with increased consumption. Personal self-worth
typically is measured by possessions, just as social progress is judged by GNP growth."17
So, it may be said that the meme of economics -- which values things according to their
monetary profitability; which uses quantitative guides to measure well-being; which
equates "better" with "more" -- is, like the meme of anthropocentrism, a widely-
advocated one, being maintained by "societies of varying ideologies," including our own.
We have discussed two of our "memes" -- our institutionalized perceptions of the world
from which we derive our values, upon which we base our ethics -- for how we perceive
the world and evaluate it invariably determines how we behave toward it. -- These memes
exist at a time in which we are causing untold harm to our natural environment. The
problems we are causing, while overlapping each other, are legion. They include: air
pollution; ozone depletion; acid rain; solid waste overload; toxic waste hazards; water
pollution; deforestation; desertification; global warming; extermination of species; and
resource exhaustion.
Such are some of the well-documented problems we are causing to our environment.
However, by degrading our environment, are we not in effect harming ourselves? When
we pour pollutants such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides generated by industry and
automobiles into our breathing atmosphere; contaminants such as gasoline and fertilizer
run-off from underground storage tanks and farm fields into our drinking water;
hazardous wastes such as heavy metals and toxic chemicals from various sources into
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 5
the land upon which we build our homes and into the soil in which we grow our food, we
harm ourselves in ways that increase our risks for developing cancer, being poisoned and
developing other health problems. However, there are ways in which our degradation of
the environment affects us less evidently and directly, though even more impactfully.
For, through our careless behavior, we are tampering with the mechanism that makes
our very existence possible: the earth's ecosystem.
Man does not live independently of the planet's other life-forms. He is part of a vast and
complex symbiotic system wherein all life-forms depend on each other for their
sustenance: "Within this life realm, every organism is linked, however tenuously, to every
other. Microbe; plant, and mammal, soil dweller and ocean swimmer, all are caught up
in the cycling of energy and nutrients from sun, water, air, and earth. This global
exchange system flows through various transport mechanisms, from ocean currents, to
climate patterns and winds; from the travels of animals to the processes of feeding,
growth, and decay. ...And throughout the life zone, change and diversity, specialization
and intricate interdependence, are found at every level."18 An interesting example of
interdependence among life-forms can be found in the relationship between plants and
insects:
"Flowers and insects ...(have entered) a marriage -- more properly, a
symbiosis -- which (is) to the advantage of both partners. Their
...interaction is well illustrated by the presence of carotenoids in the petals
and, pollens of many flowers. These vitamins sharpen the vision of their
insect consumers in exactly those colors which the flower is offering as an
attractant. In addition, flowers send forth molecules, pheromones, whose
scent mimics the sexual advertisement of several insects. In return for
nourishing insects, flowers benefit t from a system of fertilization." 19
--Wherein insects transfer pollen in excess of what they use for food from one flower to
another, thereby setting in motion the plants' reproduction process. Since man depends
on plants for food and oxygen (through the process of photosynthesis plants convert solar
energy into carbohydrates and produce oxygen as a by-product), we also depend on the
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 6
insects which make possible their reproduction. Additional examples of ways in which
different species interact with each other and make possible the existence of yet other
life-forms abound. If it were not for the relationship between a triad of infinitesimal ocean
creatures, for instance, the earth's oxygen content could not be maintained at its present
level, and life as we know it would not exist:
"First of the trio are photosynthesizing algae, ocean residents that are
oxygen producers. The oxygen consumers are tiny oceanic animals called
zooplankton. A large population of these animals means a thorough
utilization of the algae-expired oxygen, leaving little for escape to the
atmosphere. Conversely, few zooplankton means incomplete interception
of oxygen on its way from algae to atmosphere. With only these two
participants, the system might be unstable; a spurt in the population of
zooplankton, for instance, might unleash the savage consequences of
atmospheric oxygen depletion. Fortunately, a third apex of the triangle
regulates the numbers of zooplankton and thereby indirectly controls the
flow of oxygen to the atmosphere. The critically important governors are
marine bacteria.
"As man does not live by bread alone, neither do zooplankton live by oxygen
alone. Among their other needs are the nutrient nitrogen. The bacteria,
however, likewise compete for this precious resource. The ferocity of the
competition depends upon the quantity of oxygen in the environment. If
the bacteria sense ample oxygen, their appetite for nitrogen subsides.
The zooplankton then prosper and proliferate. As a result, the flow of
oxygen, to the atmosphere is reduced -- but not dangerously so, for when
the bacteria sense an atmospheric oxygen deficiency, they greedily
consume nitrogen. Zooplankton starve, their numbers plummet, and
oxygen flows more abundantly to the atmosphere. To the successful
operation of this intricate interplay among microscopic coplaneteers we owe
our existence. "20
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 7
So, just as man depends upon insects for the reproduction of plants for food, he depends
upon such things as bacteria for the regulation of oxygen levels for respiration.
As highly-evolved mammals, we do not tend to identify with "lower" forms of life such as
honeybees or diatoms, nor are many of us even remotely aware of the existence of tiny
creatures such as zooplankton -- yet we rely on them for our subsistence and are united
with them in the ecosystem and by the elements of life that we share: "All life is one.
This is not a cliché, but a biological reality. Over 3.6 billion years, a teeming variety of
life-forms has evolved, yet in every living cell there are common features of nucleic acids
that encode inheritance, and adenosine triphosphate that provides energy. In every living
organism, hormones and similar compounds carry vital chemical messages. In turn,
organisms are linked together in intricate ecosystems. What happens to one can affect
all: our present biosphere has evolved only after photosynthesis in early algae plants
began to release essential oxygen into the atmosphere. Evolution produces vast diversity,
yet it links all living forms in a single process."21
There is a hypothesis which takes an even broader account of the ecosystemic process.
The Gaia hypothesis, formulated by James E. Lovelock, takes a position contrary to that
of conventional Darwinian theory, which holds that life-forms simply react to given
environments. Rather, the Gaian notion holds that life, collectively, plays an active role
in creating and maintaining the conditions necessary for its sustenance:
"On Earth, there is a huge global system that is self-regulating -- in the
sense that life is part of it. And life interacts powerfully with the
environment, in such a way that conditions on Earth remain constantly fit
for its survival."22
Since life began 3.5 billion years ago, the sun's thermal output has risen by 30 percent;
yet earth's surface temperature has remained constant at a comfortable-for-life average
of 5 - 25°C. during that great span of time.23 How might this phenomenon be accounted
for? Professor Lynn Margulis of Boston University's Biology Department induces:
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 8
"It is hard to believe from an astronomical point of view that the
temperature has, simply by accident, maintained constant. We prefer to
believe that there's an active temperature regulating system. And when we
look around, we see that it's really the sum of the organisms and their
activities that have the potential for regulating the temperature. Organisms
produce gases that can absorb radiation. They change surface
temperatures. They produce clouds by producing lots of water that produce
clouds, that change surface from white, dark to white, and so on. ...and we
believe that temperature is also part of the Gaian regulation system."24
Life then, according to the Gaia hypothesis, is vastly more than just a "passenger" on the
planet -- "In fact, life is so intimate a part of this planet that divisions into animate and
inanimate are artificial."25
"Earth's biosphere (life) is not independent of the atmosphere (air),
hydrosphere (oceans), or lithosphere (soil). Instead all are parts of a
coherent whole. Insofar as that whole maintains a constant temperature
and a compatible chemical composition -- in short, a benign homeostasis -
- within a constantly changing setting, it can be considered alive." 26
So, the hypothesis argues that the earth itself, functioning much like an organism whose
parts work interdependently to maintain its existence -- having a "metabolism," if you
will -- may be regarded as a single (though enormous) living entity. If true, this would
imply that we are parts of a greater "self," and that by harming our environment we are
quite literally harming ourselves. So, rather than abusing our environment, we should be
caring for it. Yet, in the ways mentioned earlier, we are doing just the opposite. Through
such practices as deforestation, we are driving to extinction the various species which
make their habitats there -- vital parts of the ecosystem that maintains the conditions
for our existence; by polluting the oceans and waterways, we are interfering with the
normal interactions of the species which live there -- further upsetting the ecological
balance;" and by profligately burning non-renewable fossil fuels, we are risking the
chemical composition of the atmosphere being altered in such a way that cannot be
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 9
compensated for by natural temperature-regulating systems thereby paving the way for
global cataclysm on a scale unseen since prehistoric times.
Even if one does not subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis, it must nevertheless be
acknowledged that through our current behaviors, we are endangering the conditions for
human existence. Although, in the broader scheme of things, it doesn't particularly
matter whether or not we perpetuate our species; historically, it has been shown that
nature "has no attachment to;' particular life-forms." As mentioned earlier, "Ninety-nine
percent of them have gone extinct." Should we impose our own extinction through our
environmentally-careless practices "...creatures will rise up in our stead that thrive on
murky greenhouse air, or dine on compounds human metabolisms find toxic. The full
measure of the ecosystem's toughness is how little it needs us..." As Dr. Michael Guillen
and E.G. Wilson point out:
"...we humans are somewhere near the top (of the food chain). Now most
people say that that means that we're more intelligent and more important
than other species, but in fact, from an environmental point of view, just
the opposite is true."
"The ecosystems of the world could do without humanity very well. If we
were to disappear tonight the world wouldn't notice; the ecosystems would
gradually heal themselves and come back to the rich equilibrium they were
at ten thousand years ago.
"Nature's only concern is that life persist; it doesn't necessarily care that a
part of that life be human in form. But if we value our species enough to
see it perpetuated, then we must take action to correct our self-destructive
behaviors."
If we are to solve our environmental problems, we must first define exactly what they
are. Though we may be familiar with such issues as pollution, deforestation and dumping
of toxic wastes, we would be incorrect in concluding that such things are the actual
problems -- they are, in fact, only the external symptoms. We must look for the
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 10
underlying roots of our behavior if we are to effect a lasting change and save ourselves
from catastrophe. We must look for our memes.
Both our anthropocentric meme and our economic meme, as mentioned earlier, are
interrelated.
If we examine the historical developments of each, we may see how this is so. Thomas
A. Sancton, in his article "What on Earth are We Doing?," in the January 2, 1989 issue of
Time gives us this historical account of our anthropocentric meme:
"Humanity's current predatory relationship with nature reflects a man-
centered world view that has evolved over the ages. Almost every society
has had its myths about the earth and its origins. The ancient Chinese
depicted Chaos as an enormous egg whose parts separated into earth and
sky, yin and yang. The Greeks believed Gaia, the earth, was created
immediately after Chaos and gave birth to the gods. In many pagan
societies, the earth was seen as a mother, a fertile giver of life. Nature --
the soil, forest, sea -- was endowed with divinity, and mortals were
subordinate to it. "The Judeo-Christian tradition introduced a radically
different concept. The earth was the creation of a monotheistic God, who,
after shaping it, ordered its inhabitants, in the words of Genesis:
'...replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living
thing that moveth upon the earth.' The idea of dominion could be
interpreted as an invitation to use nature as a convenience.
Thus the spread Christianity, which is generally considered to have paved
the way for the development of technology, may have at the same time
have carried the seeds of wanton exploitation of nature that often
accompanied technical progress. "Those tendencies were compounded by
the Enlightenment notion of a mechanistic universe that man could shape
to his own ends through science." 30
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 11
And Paul Wachtell, in his book The Poverty of Affluence, gives us these insights into the
history of our economic meme:
"Central to our emancipation from nature ...was the development of
farming methods that yielded a surplus beyond what was immediately
needed by the farmer. This permitted more people to engage in activities
other than producing food, and greater differentiation and specialization
could develop. Efficiency and expertise came to be more prominent, and so
too did trade;
and ...the process became an accelerating one in which the accumulation
of surpluses and the changes in modes of production and social organization
mutually influenced each other. This seemingly inexorable feedback cycle
has propelled us into a world of plenty, but a world in which many traditional
values have fallen by the wayside, and only what can be counted seems to
count.
"When most production was for use, and when trade was largely in kind,
the concrete qualities of things were of paramount importance. People grew
primarily what they needed, not what would "sell," and when they traded it
was for particular items that filled quite specific needs. But as, increasingly
economic activity and the garnering of the necessities of life came to require
money, a change of consciousness occurred as well. Both work and its fruits
came to be valued less for what was concrete and given and more for their
exchange value, for the amount of money they could bring. "31
So, we find that the historical development of our anthropocentric meme and that of our
economic meme are analogous to each other: whereas at one time we may have regarded
the earth and its (re)sources in a subjective light -- we revered the earth as our "mother,"
while having valued her (re)sources for their intrinsic qualities -- our world views have
(d)evolved over time to their present anthropocentric/economic state in which we view
both our world and its (re)sources as instruments and commodities. In other words, our
views have become inverted over time so that we regard the earth as belonging to man
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 12
rather than man belonging to the earth. It is this objective way of viewing the planet that
birthed us which is common to both our anthropocentric and economic memes, and which
I believe is greatly responsible for the ecological crises in which we presently find
ourselves.
Since the earth is regarded as an object belonging to us, it does not warrant our respect
-- we may do with it as we please. Therefore, since it is not an end in itself, only a means
to one us -- we think nothing of degrading our natural environment: "The natural world
is seen as (human beings') to exploit and despoil. The biological and mineral storehouses
of the Earth, once thought inexhaustible, are ruthlessly plundered. In the process, the
web of interdependence from which humanity itself is derived begins to fall apart." 32.
In effect, our anthropocentric and economic memes, regarding the earth as an object
rather than a subject, blind us to our relation with the environment. By its very definition,
an objective way of looking at things requires a detached perspective on the part of the
viewer; hence by viewing the earth as an object, we become perceptually separated from
the environment to which in actuality (as we have seen earlier), we are intimately linked.
Indeed, the very use of the word environment serves to separate us from the Earth which
is both our parent and our home, and from the cohabitants of the planet who are our
biotic family, connoting "that which is out there" versus "we who are here." And, like a
snowball, our capacity to degrade the earth increases, since a feeling of separation from
it further enables us to degrade it.
Actually, it is not quite apparent to me whether it is a view of the earth as an object
which precipitates our feelings of separation from it, or whether it is a view of ourselves
as transcendent the earth which foments our perceptions of it as an object. But it is
nonetheless clear to me that each perception in turn fosters the other, and that as long
as we continue to operate within this cycle of thought, we shall continue to degrade the
earth.
Man is a highly-encephalized creature -- capable of observing, analyzing and reflecting
upon the world. But it is precisely because of his cognitive abilities that man can be
misguided. To recall the statements of Holmes Rolston, III appearing in this-essay's
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 13
epigram, other creatures cannot make mistakes in the same way that humans can; only
humans can rationalize and consciously choose paths of behavior -- therefore the
possibility automatically exists that wrong paths may be chosen. Humans are not
omnipotent, as our technological prowess might lead us to believe; our cognitive abilities
make us capable of great achievement, but they also make us capable of terrible
mistakes. And in light of the ecological crises in which we presently find ourselves, it
seems clear that we've made some. If we are to correct the situation, it will require more
than just the development and application of new technologies, "...(It) will happen only
after a profound change occurs in most of humanity's way of thinking. It will occur only
after a transformation in human values, attitudes and ways of living." 33
To begin, we must accept the fact that we are wholly capable of making errors in
judgement and consequently choosing wrong paths of behavior. In addition, we must
realize that paths which may have been proper choices initially, within the context of time
and circumstances that they were chosen, may later in time become maladaptive. As
Gregg Easterbrook observes:
"(There was a time) when nature was the enemy, industrialization the ally.
Nature spread disease and spoiled food,... . Pesticides, pharmaceuticals,
...and similar inventions held out the hope of a more civilized existence.
(Later in time) nature's excesses had been tamed, replaced by industrial
excess. ...making nature seem the aggrieved party." 34
Once we've realized these things, our minds become open to new ways of thinking. We
become able to cast off the inheritance of our memes and may begin to re-examine our
world and man's role in it in a new light. Is man, for instance, the centerpoint of creation
for whom all things were made?
"From a short-range ...perspective we can say that the value of nature lies
in its generation and support of human life and is therefore only
instrumental. But from a longer-range, ...perspective systemic nature is
valuable intrinsically as a projective system, with humans only one sort of
its projects... The system is of value for its capacity to throw forward (pro-
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 14
ject) all the storied history. On that scale it seems shortsighted and
arrogant for such latecomers to say that the system is only of instrumental
value for humans. . ." 35
In other words, "...364/365 of the earth's history has transpired without us."36"We can
measure our history in millions of years, whereas billions are needed to encompass that
of earth itself."37 To think that its resources were created solely for our use then, in light
of their having been in existence for billions of years prior to our even having come on
the scene, seems absurd.
Is man superior to the earth's other living things? Has he the right by virtue of his alleged
superiority to exercise dominion over nature?
Man is unarguably the most highly-encephalized creature on the planet; and it is
undebatably true that he is one of the rare few species to be self-conscious; but is he to
be judged on the basis of having such qualities to be superior to other life-forms? Does
possessing them entitle him to special privilege over other species?
"After all, many non-human species have capacities that humans lack.
There is the flight of the birds, the speed of the cheetah, the power of
photosynthesis in the leaves of plants, the craftsmanship of spiders
spinning their webs, the agility of a monkey in the tree tops. Why are these
not to be taken as signs of their superiority over us?" 38
Through the process of natural selection, life-forms have evolved (and continue to
evolve), in such a way that they are best enabled to survive within their particular
surroundings. Therefore, while a highly-developed organ of intelligence may be valuable
to humans, it is not necessarily of importance to other species in their individual struggles
for existence; it would seem that our capacities are being judged as superior to those of
other creatures strictly from a human point of view. That is, "...a point of view in which
the good of humans is taken as the standard of judgement. All we need do is look at the
capacities of animals and plants from the standpoint of their good to find a contrary
judgement of superiority. The speed of the cheetah, for example, is a sign of its
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 15
superiority to humans when considered from the standpoint of the cheetah's good. If it
were as slow a runner as a human it would not be able to catch its prey. And so for all
the other abilities of animals and plants that further their good but are lacking in humans.
In each case the judgement of human superiority would be rejected from a nonhuman
standpoint."39
On a broader systemic level, we find that each life-form evolves into its own particular
ecological niche; that is, each species does its own special "job" in maintaining the
stability of the larger ecosystem. (We may recall here our discussion of the interactions
between algae, zooplankton and marine bacteria in maintaining atmospheric conditions.)
One species of life, therefore, cannot be directly compared with another and judged for
its superiority/ inferiority since each performs different ecosystemic functions. Within the
context of an ecosystem a predatory lion, for instance, cannot be considered any more
or less valuable than an environmental- chemistry-regulating microbial protozoan. 40
"Yet it is we humans, supported by the huge warehouse of extragenetic
information stored in our bloated brains, who have arbitrarily divided life
forms into categories of 'higher' (e.g., mammals, especially primates, and
birds) and 'lower' (bacteria, algae, and lichens). ...however ...the 'lower'
forms are the ones essential to the maintenance and operation of the global
life-support apparatus. The higher forms are almost parasitic, profiting from
the industry and enterprise of their primitive ancestors while contributing
nothing of essence to their efforts."41
Indeed, except for our activities which only degrade them, we find that we humans "have
little biological role in ecosystems,... ."42 When compared to other species against an
ecological back-drop, we find that we are perhaps the least important life-form on earth.
"The ...planet could easily adjust for our absence."43 So, far from being superior to earth's
other life-forms, we find that, ecologically speaking, humans are but a burden to the
earth.
It should be noted that it is not the purely academic issue of human superiority which is
important here. Rather, it is what practically results from such a notion that is of
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 16
significance. For when we raise our own worth above that of other creatures, nothing
prevents us from using them for our own selfish ends (let us recall here Immanuel Kant's
remarks about "disposing of things as we please") -- whether that use be in the form of
individually slaughtering baby seals and other such animals for their furs so that humans
can walk around in "luxury," or whether it consists in the wholesale destruction of tropical
rain forests vital habitat for millions of the world's species -- so that we can eat cheap(er)
(yet still un-economical and un-ecologically-sound), beef in fast-food restaurants. And in
light of what we have been discussing about the way the earth's ecosystem works, we
dare not, for our own sakes, "dispose" of other creatures for fear of upsetting the
ecological balance and chancing humanity-affecting repercussions. Of course, I am not
saying that we shouldn't harm other creatures simply for our own sakes -- that would be
a very anthropocentric and un-ecological thing to say; what I am saying, however, is that
if we valued and respected the rights of other creatures to live and prosper to begin with,
the question of our own ecological safety might never even arise and I might never have
found it necessary to write a thesis regarding an ecological crises.
If there is a way in which man is superior to other creatures, it lies in "The fact that man
can have the idea 'I'," meaning that he is capable of reflecting upon the world and forming
judgements about right and wrong. As such, man exists in the capacity of a moral agent
whereas other creatures, operating on instinct alone, cannot. Self-consciousness,
therefore, does not entitle one 'to special privilege, but instead honors one with
responsibility. Holmes Rolston, III explains:
"Animals are wholly absorbed into those niches in which they have such
satisfactory fitness, but humans can stand apart from the world and
consider themselves in relation to it. ·..Humans are only part of the world
...but they are the only part of the world that can orient itself with respect
to a theory of it. So humans can begin to comprehend what comprehends
them; in this lies their paradox and responsibility. They have a distinct
metaphysical status just because they alone can do metaphysics. The
metaphysics they do may lead them to an experience of unity with nature,
to responsible care for other species, but such unity paradoxically puts them
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 17
beyond nature, where nothing else is capable of such experience and
caring. When they assert the value of Earth and its creatures, they exceed
the creatures' scope of value.
"Thus the human capacity for a transcending overview of the whole makes
us superior and imposes strange duties, those of transcending human
interests and linking them up with those of the whole natural Earth."44
It is this concept of caretaking for -- as opposed to exerting dominion over -- the earth
and its creatures which I believe was the original intention of the writings in Genesis but
which I believe, due to the use of ambiguous language and the distortive nature of the
passage of time, has become very much misinterpreted by our Judeo-Christian faiths and
which has contributed in-no small way to our anthropocentric outlook. Regarding our
economic outlook toward the world, is it indeed best to evaluate things on a monetary
scale, and are quantitative guides really the best tools for evaluating progress?
Lester R. Brown of the Worldwatch Institute provides us with this for our consideration:
"...economic indicators are flawed in a fundamental way: they do not distinguish between
resource uses that sustain progress and those that undermine it. The principal measure
of economic progress is the gross national product. ... GNP includes depreciation of plant
and equipment, but it does not take into account the depreciation of 'natural capital,
including nonrenewable resources such as oil or renewable resources such as forests.
"This shortcoming can produce a misleading sense of national economic
health. According to the conventional approach, for example, countries
that overcut forests actually do better in the short run than those that
manage forests on a sustained-yield basis: the trees cut down are counted
as income but no subtraction is made to account for depletion of the forest,
a natural asset. The advantage is short-lived, however, as overcutting
eventually destroys the resource base entirely, leading to a collapse of the
forest products industry.45 Indeed, economic indicators are so flawed that
"...medical costs due to the diseases caused by pollution are figured' into
the GNP as pluses. ...if less pollution occurred, and as a result less medical
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 18
treatment was required, this would show up as a drop in the GNP. "The
problem with the GNP, of course, is that it makes no distinction as to how
(or what goods and services are sold).
The great strength -- and also the great weakness of the idea of the GNP
is that everything is boiled down to dollars and cents. And all things that
represent the same number of dollars are therefore treated as equal."46
Far better, therefore, that we value things for their concrete, as well as abstract qualities,
and that we use qualitative in addition to quantitative guides for evaluating progress,
such as those relating to sustainability and a healthy environment. As Holmes Rolston,
III insightfully states: "...economic activity sooner or later must be and ought to be deeply
ecological activity..." 47
And, is more always better?
Paul Wachtell answers:
"By its very nature, a growth approach to (satisfaction) puts an enormous
strain on the fragile ecological web that supports all life on earth."48
While Dr. Norman Myers echoes:
"(The ecological problem) lies ...in an outburst of human consumerism. One
billion over-affluent people enjoy lifestyles that impose a grossly
disproportionate pressure on our planetary system.
"Not surprisingly, this overtaxing of the Earth's ecosystem leads to
breakdowns of other sorts. As more people seek greater amounts of
declining resources, conflicts erupt: more people have been killed through
military conflagrations since World War II than all the soldiers in that war.
In fact, it is breakdown in our social systems, our economic structures, and
our political mechanisms that generate the greatest threat of all."49
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 19
With such things being the ultimate and inevitable consequences of more, far better that
we place greater importance on the less materialistic, though infinitely more satisfying
aspects of our lives, such as suggested by Paul Wachtell: "...feelings, relatedness,
and human experience count more than the nonsense we are told today is 'the bottom
line'... ."50
From this re-examination of our world views we may come to form very different opinions
than the anthropocentric/economic-oriented ones we presently hold. From these new
opinions should emerge a new set of values, along with consequent changes in behavior
with regard to the Earth. We may find ourselves coming to revere and treat her as our
ancient Greek ancestors did, who called her Gaia, or "Mother Earth;" or as our Native
American ancestors did, one of whom summarizes the thoughts in this essay with the
following passage:
"We are part of the Earth and the Earth is part of us. The fragrant flowers are our sisters.
The reindeer, the horse, the great eagle are our brothers. The rocky heights, the foamy
crests of waves in the river, the sap of meadow flowers, the body heat of the pony -- and
of human beings -- all belong to the same family.
"We know that the white Man does not understand our way of life. To him,
one piece of land is much like another. He is a stranger who comes in the
night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The Earth is not his friend
but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He cares
nothing for the land. He forgets his parents’ graves and his children's
heritage. He kidnaps the Earth from his children. He treats his Mother the
Earth and his Brother the Sky like merchandise. His hunger will eat the
Earth bare and leave only a desert. I have seen a thousand buffalo left
behind by the White Man -- shot from a passing train. I am a savage and
cannot understand why the puffing iron horse should be more important
than the buffalo, which we kill only in order to stay alive. What are human
beings without animals? If all the animals ceased to exist, human beings
would die of a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 20
animals, will happen soon also to human beings. Continue to soil your bed
and one night you will suffocate in your own waste. Humankind has not
woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to
the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things
connect. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls also the children of the Earth."51
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Derived from the Greek word "mimeme" (imitation), Dawkins, in his book The Selfish
Gene, has coined the word "meme," meaning "cultural phenomena that have been
emulated in so many settings and for so long a time that they have become customs and
traditions." 5
* * *
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 21
NOTES
1. Gregg Easterbrook, "Cleaning Up," Newsweek, July 24, 1989, 27.
2. John Groom, "Goddess of the Earth," Nova (Boston: WGBH Educational
Foundation, 1986 - Transcript from the television broadcast on Jan 28,
1986)
3. George A. Seielstad, Cosmic Ecology: The View from the Outside In (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983), cover.
4. Ibid., 141.
5. Ibid., 157.
6. John Seed, "Beyond Anthropocentrism," Thinking Like a Mountain, John Seed et
al. eds. (New Society Publishers, 1988), 35.
7. Holmes Rolston, III, Environmental Ethics (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1988), 197.
8. Ibid., 45.
9. Ibid., 62.
10. Thomas A. Sancton, "What On Earth Are We Doing?," Time, January 2, 1989, 29.
11. Erich Fromm, "Selfishness, Self-Love and Self-Interest," The Self: Explorations in
Personal Growth, Clark Monstakas, ed. (Harper), 67.
12. Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crises (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers,
1986), 49.
13. Paul Wachtell, The Poverty of Affluence, (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers,
1989), 86.
14. Ibid., 88.
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 22
15. Ibid., 87.
16. Ibid., 92.
17. Lester R. Brown, et al., State of the World 1990 (New York, London: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1990), 190.
18. Norman Myers, et al., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, (New York: Anchor
Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984), 12.
19. Seielstad, op. cit., 116.
20. Ibid., 138, 139.
21. Myers, op. cit., 140.
22. "Goddess of the Earth," op. cit., 4.
23. Ibid., 5.
24. Ibid.
25. Seielstad, op. cit., 107.
26. Ibid., 135.
27. Geoffrey Cowley, "The Earth Is One Big System," Newsweek, November 7, 1988,
99.
28. Easterbrook, op. cit.
29. Good Morning America, ABC Television broadcast, February 12, 1990.
30. Sancton, op. cit.
31. Wachtell, op. cit., 84, 85.
32. Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, op. cit., 158
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 23
33. Peter Ditzel, et al., Planet Earth: Beyond Repair? (Worldwide Church of God,
1990), 24.
34. Easterbrook, op. cit., 29.
35. Rolston op. cit., 198.
36. Seielstad, op. cit., 121.
37.
38. Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986), 129
39. Ibid., 130.
40. Seielstad, op. cit., 138.
41. Ibid., 140.
42. Rolston, op. cit., 72.
43. Seielstad, op. cit.
44. Rolston, op. cit., 71 - 73.
45. ____ op. cit, 8.
46. Wachtell, op. cit., 88.
47. Rolston op. cit., 291.
48. Wachtell, op. cit., xii.
49. Myers, op. cit., 18.
50. Wachtell, op. cit., xx.
ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 24
51. Chief Seattle, as quoted by (Kansas City: The Green Committees of
Correspondence Membership Pamphlet).
* * *
Student: Carl Mahlmann
School: Adelphi University
Class: Business Capstone II:
Ethics & the American Experience: Business, Government & Culture
Instructor: Karsten Struhl
Date: May 3, 1990
Project: Choose a contemporary social problem with a significant ethical-philosophical
dimension. Synthesize research and develop own ethical perspective.
* * *
RELATED LINKS
http://community-2.webtv.net/AstroEcologist/COSMICECOLOGYECO/
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Philosophy/philosophy_articles.html
http://www.blueman.com/land/archive/earth/