By R. L. Wysong
The industrial revolution began at a time when the Earth was not yet fully explored. It still seemed limitless with an absorbing capacity far beyond human reach. Waste was simply dumped on the ground, in water, or billowed into the air. The enthusiasm for the wonders that the industrial/technical era could bring caused everyone to think as far as the goodies and no further.
We now know civilization's capacity to disrupt environmental balances cannot be ignored. On the other hand, neither can we stop industrial/technical advance. It's a heck of a pickle. Industry wants to proceed as if there are no environmental consequences, and others, not wanting to gag on exhaust, want to put the brakes on. The debate between profits and jobs on the one hand and environmental concerns on the other will continue to heat up as population swells, consumerism flourishes, and emerging economies struggle for their share of the industrialized good life.
Environmental crises are a testament to the fact that people are always inclined to live as if the moment is their only concern. Extrapolating the consequences of actions out into the future might get in the way of cherished habits. So we live with insouciance and wait for disaster to stare us in the face. Then, when it is hopefully not too late, we attempt to take intelligent action.
The smart thing from the very beginning would have been to never engage in industry that fouled our environment or consumed resources in a non-sustainable way. Safety and sustainability should have been first priority, not seeing how fast we could crank up assembly plants to create products (most of which are unnecessary) and line pockets.
Maintaining wild areas, renewable energy sources, sustainable agriculture, and being sure recycling technology keeps pace with production and packaging are not insuperable difficulties. As evidenced by emerging green technologies, our ingenuity could easily overcome the problems. By pausing as a society to look at the long-term, we could have all the modern conveniences but without the attendant environmental threats.
But "would've-could've-should've" is not where we are today. Although we face environmental concerns on every front, many politicians, consumers, and industrialists deny that there is a problem. They argue that environmentalism is just a silly reason to interfere with progress and prosperity. The attitude seems to be that unless people are choking on smog, growing tumors from drinking the water, or have to pay ten dollars for a gallon of gasoline, all is well.
The economy and the environment are intimately linked. A robust economy as well as poverty can be ruinous to the environment. When starving or freezing, people eat and burn whatever is available. Perfect examples of this can be seen right now where refugee camps are set up. Every piece of wood and every edible plant or creature is obliterated, creating a dust bowl perimeter that expands out from the camps in proportion to time. A thriving economy solves such desperation. Also, by improving the standard of living, people start to think in terms of maintaining their quality of life. That means looking to the future, the view that is necessary for sustainability and long-term health. In turn, environmental sensitivity engenders health, without which a prospering economy makes no difference.
It is now politically correct to demonize industry and money rather than see their potential synergy with a healthy environment. Although this extreme view is not totally reasonable, it is a safer approach than industry without limit. On the other hand, the pro-industry, anti-environmental view has a beguiling appeal because it tells people what they want to hear: Everything is okay—so eat, drink, and be merry. Ozone holes won't get you, nor will bad food, species extinctions, deforestation, water pollution, tobacco smoke, factory farms, herbicides, pesticides, genetic engineering, or automobile and industrial exhaust. Forget the radical environmental stuff and enjoy yourself. Humans are puny and the Earth is big, so don't worry about it.
Proponents reinforce and justify this environmentally blind, pro-industrial view with arguments such as these: humans create more greenhouse gasses than cars; water is cleaner than it has ever been; trees are on the increase; volcanoes cause more pollution than industry; oil slicks are not a concern because oil is a natural product constantly released on the ocean floors anyway; the Earth can heal almost anything; life would reemerge eventually even if all nuclear plants and weapons exploded.
Even God enters the fray. Some argue that stewardship is really not that important since God is coming to save believers and create an Earthly paradise, or take them to a pristine heaven. They are confident that God would never permit things to get so bad that the saved would not be saved. Besides, there is a Biblical command to subdue the Earth so why not have fun doing so?
We all share guilt for environmental degradation, regardless of our philosophical or religious views. If we live in and support the modern world we are culpable by our very existence. Each one of us tends to use up and waste more than we restore. At the same time, we want to feel comfortable that our conveniences and industrial actions will not harm us. Therefore, there is strong emotional pressure in all of us to believe that everything is okay and that we need not worry because the Earth is so big and forgiving and all we are doing, after all, is just trying to enjoy life. In the back of everyone's mind is the hope that science and technology will always be able to come save us. It's the "really bad things won't happen to me" syndrome spread across whole societies and the whole Earth.
But environmental problems are real and can destroy us. History abounds with evidence that we ignore the environment at our peril. We should be living on our income, not the Earth's savings. For example, primitive cultures became nomadic because they exhausted the resources in their surroundings. (Where will the U.S. move when it exhausts its resources?) Archaeology shows how settlers to islands first killed all the animals for food, and then felled all the trees for homes, boats, and fires. With no life support left, their society either perished or moved to another land. (Where will Africa move if it does the same?) Ancient civilizations around the globe suffered under environmental ruination and either met their demise or moved on to despoil yet another area. (Where will Europe move when it ruins its land, air, and water?)
Environmental ruination and human suffering are not just events of the past, or abstractions to ponder for the future. For huge third world regions these stark realities are present right now in an endless cruel cycle of environmental degradation, over-population, and poverty. Millions send their toddlers out across barren areas searching for the last twigs of firewood. Some walk for hours every day just to find potable water. They have no place to move and only misery to look forward to. (Where will Earth's inhabitants move when we reach the bottom of the planet's barrel?)
Here is the essential point that seems to be missed: If we care about humankind, all planetary issues are important. Therefore, all sociopolitical, economic, biological, and environmental issues must be evaluated on the basis of how they impact human welfare, both in the short-term and long-term.
(Originally published at GoArticles and reprinted with permission from the author, R.L. Wysong).
R. L. Wysong is author of several books; his most recent is Living Life As If Thinking Matters. He has practiced veterinary surgery and medicine, taught college courses in human anatomy, physiology, and the origin of life, directed research for his health education and product development company, and heads the Wysong Institute. Visit: As If Thinking Matters.
Source:www.isnare.com |
