Posts Tagged 'environment'

Ecocentric Writing

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=earth+from+space&iid=98536″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/98536/planet-earth-from-space/planet-earth-from-space.jpg?size=500&imageId=98536″ width=”380″ height=”253″ /]
In this article at opendemocracy.net, Paul Kingsnorth pines for his idealistic eco-activist youth, and bewails the, as he sees it, overly politicized and sustainability-focused environmentalism.

After much reminiscing about his encounters with the vast, terrible, and glorious natural world (enabled, it must be noted, by the capacity for relatively cheap and accessible international travel), he says that he became and environmentalist because the beauties of nature

are precious for their own sake, that they are food for the human soul and that they need people to speak for them to, and defend them from, other people, because they cannot speak our language and we have forgotten how to speak theirs. And because we are killing them to feed ourselves and we know it and we care about it, sometimes, but we do it anyway because we are hungry, or we have persuaded ourselves that we are.

Absolutely. The environment is full of majesty and cannot defend itself against human industrialism, and therefore needs people to speak in its defense.

Kingsnorth then goes on to complain that “today’s environmentalism is as much a victim of the contemporary cult of utility as every other aspect of our lives,“ and that people “are environmentalists now in order to promote something called “sustainability”. “ which “means sustaining human civilisation at the comfort level which the world’s rich people – us – feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” which is needed to do so.”

This is, so far, a fair point. While I doubt that all environmentalists are looking for a less-polluting way to maintain the status quo, there is certainly an overarching presupposition of wealth, comfort, education, and a fairly liberal government and society.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=wind+turbine&iid=5071419″ src=”http://view1.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/5071419/wind-farm-sunset/wind-farm-sunset.jpg?size=500&imageId=5071419″ width=”234″ height=”352″ /] He goes on to accuse the environmental movement of becoming politicized to the detriment of its core purpose, giving the example of what he sees as over-simplifying the issue of climate change to carbon emissions – which, incidentally, he doesn’t offer any particularly compelling proof for, beyond political attempts to encourage harvesting energy from renewable resources – and discusses how this focus undermines the actually preservation of the natural environment because it replaces one kind of generator with another – putting turbines in the North Sea and solar panels in the desert and so on. And this is where his argument becomes essentially disingenuous.

Firstly, environmental issues are political issues because any action an individual takes that negatively affects others in their community (local or global) is inherently political – it is a question of the need to legislate the rights of the individual versus the rights of the group. To pretend that any sense of environmental responsibility should be down to some poetic staring at stars on a hilltop is juvenile.

Secondly, the logical conclusion of Kingsnorth’s complaint about replacement technologies is to cut them out all together, declaring every element of modern civilization a danger to the natural world, and of less worth than it. The only way to live fully in accordance with this perspective is to return to living like other primates – in troops, foraging (can’t be killing, can we) within a radius determined by how far we can travel on foot. Even the Amish have to cut down trees and farm and rear horses and livestock.

[picapp align=”right” wrap=”true” link=”term=borneo&iid=8405936″ src=”http://view3.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8405936/borneo-orang-utan-pongo/borneo-orang-utan-pongo.jpg?size=500&imageId=8405936″ width=”234″ height=”352″ /]We can lessen our footprint quite considerably if we return to our lifestyle as it was before the industrial revolution, but at what cost? Is Kingsnorth willing to sacrifice plumbing? Modern medicine? The planes, trains, and automobiles that allowed him to goggle at the glories of Borneo? And what of the other benefits of the civilized world? Communicating with people instantaneously, access to world art and literature? These would not be possible without the world as it is.

I do not think it is wrong to complain about the Western elitism and selfishness inherent in the trepidation towards the kind of lifestyle changes that would make a dramatic impact on the health of the atmosphere and world ecosystems. We should absolutely be encouraged to examine our conscience on a societal level and decide if there are some things we should really do without. But we cannot all be subsistence farmers. We cannot erase the effect of 7 billion people without eliminating them altogether.

Thirdly, the beauty that Kingsnorth prizes so highly only genuinely exists in the human mind. Yes the natural world has value in and of itself, but it is only humans who can technically make that judgment. There is no beauty without an observer, there is no meaning without consciousness. And, not to get religious, this does make us special. We are the only species (as far as we can tell) that can even think about taking care of other species (this is vastly different from, say, the loyalty of a dog, or the occasional rescue of a child by a gorilla at the zoo) on any kind of scale.

While I agree that we as a species and as a civilized people should respect the world we live in and do everything we can to keep it clean and healthy, we also have a right to consider our own mental and physical well-being, and we have the capacity for judgment and reason that can help us make the decision of when to prioritize which.

The thing that people tend to forget is that life is damn persistent. The earth doesn’t need us, we need it. But we do have the mental capacity to figure that out. We don’t need to live like apes to live in harmony with the world around us, and it’s beyond unrealistic to think that we should actively seek to live an entirely ‘ecocentric’ life, forgoing all the cultural richness of civilization along with the industrial waste and air pollution.

Kingsnorth admits, “This is head-in-the-clouds stuff, as relevant to our busy, modern lives as the new moon or the date of Lughnasadh. Easy to ignore, easy to dismiss,” and then decides to throw on his boots and “follow the songlines.” Which sounds to me like a cop out. You aren’t going to do much good mucking about the Pennines.

It’s not fake or shallow environmentalism to work with the world as it is. It’s the only way to get from what is to what should be.

Advertisements

If you don’t recycle, you are kind of a jerk

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=polar+bear&iid=7417184″ src=”2/d/6/2/The_San_Francisco_1994.jpg?adImageId=8532996&imageId=7417184″ width=”380″ height=”265″ /]

Recently, I was drawn into an argument (of sorts) at work, on the nature of climate change. My interlocutor insisted that he did not recycle because:

a) the whole climate change thing is not man made but a big conspiracy by scientists who are making money from supporting the claims and would be out of work if they didn’t

and

b) the zealotry of environmentalists is akin to that of fundamentalist religion, in that anyone who doesn’t agree is ostracized and condemned.

This individual, who, according to a recent poll, is one of about half the population of the UK who holds such an opinion, was brought to this point of view by Nigel Lawson (whose book on the subject is favourably reviewed here and by a climatologist here), not, unsurprisingly, a scientist, but a conservative politician.

To address point a), here is a thorough list of the arguments against climate change and the appropriate scientific proof refuting them.

I want to skip quickly past that point, since I think it’s been handled adequately elsewhere. It boils down to a refusal to understand the scientific method, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle.

Moreover, the idea that there is some evil consortium of mustache-twisting scientists bent on filling the world with windmills, rather than a varied group of climatologists, oceanographers, entomologists, meteorologists, geologists, biologists, microbiologists, astronauts, rocket scientists, ecologists, and other ‘ists’ and ‘auts’, who spent several years in school learning about how science works, stumbling across information in their research which all points to the same conclusion, is as absurd as thinking that the whole ‘world is round’ thing was a conspiracy of cartographers and sailors bent on making millions with new and more complicated maps rather than a discovery of something already extant.

Which brings me to his point b. While at first blush one can see the same kind of passion in really enthusiastic environmentalists as one sees in evangelical Christians or Mormons – people who desperately try to convert you because they really, honestly think that you will suffer endless torment if they don’t – a little more attention uncovers the problem with the comparison, which is the same problem that religious people come across when railing against atheists:

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observation, tests, and adequate repetition proving causation. Religion is about convincing yourself, science is about letting the data convince you.

People who accept (rather than ‘believe’) climate change is man made and harmful react negatively towards those who don’t not because of some religious fervor, but because the deniers’ behavior (voting, not recycling, driving SUVs) affects them.

Deniers aren’t skeptics, looking askance at meager and poorly conveyed dogma, they are jerks who don’t want the hassle of changing their behavior, or people who don’t like or ‘believe in’ science.

But the thing with science is, you don’t have to believe in it, it’s there whether you like it or not. No matter how confusing math might be to any given person, 2 + 2 = 4. The world is round even if you’re not high enough up to see.


k8films

  • RT @Karnythia: "We can't force out all the men who harass women" Why not? They kept out talented women in every field. They can be replaced… 1 day ago
  • @FirstBSA Huzzah! 1 day ago
  • @FirstBSA Hey is the x4 running on time today? 909am at Ashton lodge? Doesn't look like the bus has a live arrival… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 1 day ago
  • RT @PennyRed: Patriarchy hurts everyone. Emotional pain is not a competition. Everybody’s trauma matters. Feminism isn’t to blame for the… 4 days ago
  • RT @tedlieu: Jared Kushner appears to have committed perjury. I now believe that asking why he still has a security clearance is no longer… 5 days ago