Time is short to act to avert climate change so extreme that no reasonable predictions can be made about what its effects would be, for humans or for the world as a whole. Yet, more time on the most popular news shows is devoted to the few holdout scientists who doubt either the magnitude or the cause of climate change than to the few brave scientists willing to risk their careers to speak publicly about their incredible fears about what is in store if we don't act decisively. Each potential solution is subjected to a cost-benefit analysis as if a growing economy is more important than (or can even exist without) a planet with somewhat near its current capacity to sustain life. Often, solutions are at the same time too timid to be likely to succeed, and to radical to have any chance to be passed into law. Real solutions to the climate crisis will not be found until our society and culture re-imagine the beliefs that guide our actions. In Albert Einstein's famous words, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Real solutions to the climate crisis will not be possible without a cultural transformation of how we view the world and our place in it.
Just as a fish cannot perceive the water in which it swims, people generally have a difficult time identifying the assumptions and shared beliefs that form the foundation of their ethical and moral judgments. In modern, western nations, these assumptions include a strong belief in the scientific method, atomism, a view that humans are categorically different than other animals, and a belief that economic growth should be pursued as a first principle. Although their origins seems to be in the west, most of these ideas hold great sway across the world, at least amongst the ruling elite. Whether the individuals involved are consciously aware of these beliefs (or more precisely that they are in fact beliefs about which others can and do hold other views) or not, their effects are felt throughout the world and will be felt for ages to come, through climate change and other impacts of humans armed with technological powers exceeded only by their hubris. An alternative way of viewing the world can be understood through both The Soul of an Indian, by Ohiyesa, and The Land Ethic, by Aldo Leopold. Both argue for an essentially ecocentric approach to ethics.
The power and proper role of science are questioned in both The Soul of an Indian and The Land Ethic. Ohiyesa is willing to accept things the way they are – accepting the wonders and miracles without seeking scientific explanation. “We do not chart and measure the vast field of nature or express her wonders in the terms of science; on the contrary, we see miracles on every hand – the miracle of life in seed and egg, the miracle of death in a lightning flash and in the swelling deep!” (85). Leopold, as to be expected, sees a bigger role for science. However, he recognizes that the pyramid of living things benefits from minimal scientific intervention. “The less violent the man-made changes, the greater the probability of successful re-adjustment in the pyramid” (220).
Atomism is the idea that minute, discrete, finite and indivisible elements are the ultimate constituents of all matter. This idea is fundamental to modern, scientific approaches to understanding the world: Biology rests on the chemicals in our brains and bodies. Chemistry, in turn, can only be understood by through the physics of the sub-atomic particles. Although both Oyinesa and Leopold would likely accept that there is an element of truth to that view, they realize that despite being made of billions of tiny building blocks, the essential nature of things is something different and far greater. In Oyinesa's words, “We believe that the spirit pervades all creation... The tree, the waterfall, the grizzly bear, each is an embodied Force, and as such an object of reverence” (88). Leopold shows a similar, although less overtly spiritual, understanding when describing the land, “Land then, is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals” (216).
The idea that humans are separate and categorically different from other living things is perhaps the idea most directly challenged by both Oyinesa and Leopold. Oyinesa's conveys this directly, “The Spirit of God is not breathed into humans alone, but that the whole created universe shares in the immortal perfection of its Maker” (88). “We never claimed that the power of articulate speech is proof of superiority over 'dumb creation'; on the other hand, it is to us a perilous gift” (87). The idea that humans must take a different role in the community of life is central to Leopold's argument. “In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such” (204).
Economic growth is inherently problematic, and pursuing it given our current situation regarding climate alone should be considered unethical. Long before the specific effects of pursuing endless growth were visible, Oyinesa recognized the danger. “To us, as to other spiritually-minded people in every age and race, the love of possessions is a snare, and the burdens of a complex society a source of needless peril and temptation” (89). Leopold saw with more precision the perils of making decisions with economic growth as the goal. “One basic weakness in a conservation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value. … birds should continue as a matter of biotic right, regardless of the presence or absence of economic advantage to us” (210-211).
Catastrophic climate change is only one of many “environmental” threats we face early in the 21st century. Though the details vary, the ultimate cause of these problems lies in our culture. We view science as the ultimate arbiter of Truth, while ignoring its weaknesses and inherent biases against things like subjectivity and anything that can't be replicated easily. We look, usually to science, for answers to problems based on the interactions of tiny constituent pieces, rather than focusing on things at the level of community and ecosystem. We view ourselves as the pinnacle species, with a right or even obligation to shape the world to for our immediate benefit, instead of just another member of the world community with an obligation the life all around us. We seek to grow our way out of every problem, ignoring the simple and unavoidable fact that on a finite planet, our consumption and population must both be finite as well. Only when these underlying beliefs are disrupted will collective action on the necessary scale become possible.
If the above argument is correct, and the key to ethically and successfully facing the climate crisis is to dramatically change our cultural understanding of the world and our place in it, then the question becomes, “How?” In short, who knows? But, this may be one of the exceptions to the rule that actions speak louder than words. Or perhaps more precisely, actions alone are not loud enough, we must also speak loudly about our actions, and our reasons for taking those actions. Changing the stories that guide our lives and form our culture is, obviously, a daunting task. I believe there is no way to plan out an agenda for such a project. The only way to succeed is to try, to be persistent, and to learn as you go.
No comments:
Post a Comment