Chicken or the Egg?

Is time running out for us (humanity)? Have we reached, or worse, exceeded our carry capacity? Could further development really be the answer to solving our environmental dilemmas? Can innovation and human ingenuity pull us back from the cliff as we stare down into the abyss? Do humans have the ability to move beyond self-interest and work toward some sort of collective solution where the needs of the individual become subservient to that of a greater society? Can we recognize that our perception of a limitless food and habitat supply is a gross overestimation of the reality? Are we able to beat back instinct and do what no other species has been capable of: stop being so “successful”? These are just a few of the questions raised from the past weeks readings.  Not your light Sunday “funnies” section kinds of questions. Rather, ominous and dark, the kinds of questions that keep one up at night – or at least should. However, at the end, I have been left with a notion of hopefulness. Especially by the last of these questions – can we be different? To that I think the answer is yes. We are different, we have learned to tame (to a certain degree) nature, we have learned to work with nature, we have the ability to collect, calculate, analyze, and synthesize information causing major shifts in behavior. Even when that change in course runs in opposition to our self-interests. Charles C. Mann points to this “behavioral plasticity” in his article State of the Species.  It was from his analysis of the transition away from the slave industry in the 1800’s, decline in state violence, the growth of women’s liberty, homosexual rights, and the list goes on, that depicts humans ability to perceive a moral disaster and evolve into our potential.

The conversation as to what our potential must be in regards to situation facing the environment today and how we must apply this behavioral plasticity has reached a fevered pitch – a possible critical mass. The data overwhelmingly supports the notion that we as a species are doing significant harm to our habitat. What is far less clear is what exactly must be done to rectify this situation.  Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne try to neatly compartmentalize the predominant theories circulating in their article Paths to a Green World. Initially while reading this assessment I found myself thinking in terms of a spectrum, with “Market Liberals” occupying the far right and “Social Greens” to the left.  Quickly I realized that that evaluation was far too static and too much influenced by the American political system. In actuality, if one is to visualize these categorizations, a four-circle Venn diagram would be far more appropriate. Each worldview layering upon the others with commonalities and distinct differences to help make better sense of the “seemingly unmanageable avalanche of conflicting information and analysis.” 

Naturally, as a nascent student of global environmental politics I found that my loyalties to one category or another were continually pulled in different directions as I read through and thought about the various arguments.  I wondered how many actually fit neatly into one box and are able to reject the basic tenants of competing theories. However, my biggest issues came with the premise laid out by the “Market Liberals.” The idea that more economic wealth, production of goods and services, and consumption would lead to a reduced impact on the environment seemed a contraction to me. I do agree with the idea that the poor don’t have the luxury of demanding environmental justice when their greatest concern is survival on the most basic level. But as the “Bioenvironmentalists” point out, the “drive to pursue even more economic growth” has been the main driver of resource gluttony. I fall in line with this idea that innovation and human ingenuity will provide progress, but I take exception this “silver bullet” approach. Innovation has the potential to do as much harm as good. Without a shift in the moral obligations of, not just national or continental populations, but the entire global community, resource extraction and self-interested exploitation will persist.  For this to happen, a global debate must take place. We now have the ability to connect and discuss these issues at every far-reaching corner of the Earth. I find myself drawn to the bioenvironmentalists belief that the earth has a finite limit to its resources and ability to support life. This consciousness must be reached, even by the poor, for our full potential to be totally realized and any real progress to be made in the development on new technologies and innovations. Here is where institutions must come into play. International, national, state, and local governments have the ability to drive the conversations, provide education, protect innovation through patents, and write legislation to protect resources. It becomes a chicken or the egg scenario as those institutions are subject to the will and pressures of the societies they serve. And how does the instillation of an environmental urgency take place in 2 billion people living without electricity and proper sewage? (Humanities Potential, 2006) I agree with Alex Steffen that the ability of urban environments and municipalities hold tremendous potential to effect change and shape the debate. I think that if any kind of global social consciousness is to be reached, it will be the city that leads the conversation and education effort.