Is a critical mass possible?

I’ve begun to give some thought to the Petri dish idea. In section one of Nicholson and Wapner’s Global Environmental Politics, we read from Charles Mann that the “world is a petri dish.” He points to a study during the 1920’s by Georgii Gause in which single-celled protozoans are given a seemingly limitless habitat and food supply causing the populations to grow exponentially until they reach the constraints of the food and space.  At this point levels begin to level off, eventually they compete with themselves to the point of starvation, ultimately killing off the population. The conclusions here are that like this group of protozoans, and every other example of nature’s success stories, human will likely follow a similar trajectory. In other words, we’re doomed.

But I don’t buy it.

Disaster scenarios are easy to imagine. Hollywood has made a fortune at it. But much like the nice guy, the success story doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Although humans share many characteristics and patterns of behavior with other organism species, it is the differences that set us apart. It is here that I turn to this weeks readings, and highlight a number of those differences that I believe will steer us from extinction.  

“Blue Marble,” a picture of earth from space, shown to be floating in the vast black void of space with no borders or man made boundaries separating humanity was one of the key points in the environmental movement of the 1960’s. The image doesn’t show the complex social and political systems, networks of communication, methods of education, or multinational organizations working to eradicate disease, hunger, and conflict. All of which were created by the imagination of man. Richard Falk laughs at these manifestations of human creativity and claims a dichotomy of helplessness while living in the perceived glow of power.  He excels in his ability to present the failures of the modern nation state system. He points to the general selfishness and self interests of the nation state, and how those interests are determined by leaders at the helm driven by short term motivations and often “beholden to the wrongdoers”.  And on this point I agree. I do think that the Westphalian system lends to a system fully in pursuit of individual goals and interests. And more often than not these goals are in contradiction to one and other, making agreement and the formulation of common policies on common problems nearly impossible. Where I think Falk’s argument fails is in it’s inability to explain the seemingly altruistic actions of NGO’s, the selflessness of individuals working together to alleviate social/political/environmental ills, and the power of multinational communities to mobilize in support of a cause.

I expect that the rise of a central global government enacted to solve all the world’s environmental problems is as likely as the invasion of extraterrestrials from the moon. However, the idea of a common threat by which the global community is galvanized is far more plausible to imagine. My expectation is that that common threat will come in the form of public opinion. We are more interconnected than ever before with the ability to disseminate information faster than ever before.  Both of these trends are headed only for more speed and connectivity. Governments' perceived inaction or under action can pose to be a real threat to national security. Responses could come in the form of public protests, sanctions from democratic global community members pressured by their populations to act,  or possible boycotts of products produced in countries perceived to be freeloading on international agreements or not participating at all. Clapp and Dauvergne point to numerous agreements and a progression of the conversation on climate change; Stockholm in ‘72, Rio in ‘92, Monterrey ten years later. At the start of the modern environmental movement there were a few dozen multinational agreements on the subject, and today there are over 400. I see this as progress.  Are they difficult to enforce? Yes. Could more be done? Of course. And, it is.  But is it enough and will it be fast enough? I suppose that depends on how bad a critical mass of society wants it.