The grand myth of environmentalism is that it’s all about saving the Earth.
It’s not. The Earth will be just fine. Environmentalism is all about saving ourselves.
That may seem a bit counter-intuitive; after all, the Earth is certainly central to the rhetoric, the memetic of environmentalism. Most environmental discussions focus on ecological dynamics, with references to human beings typically limited to enumerations of the various insults we’ve visited upon the planet. Given the degree of culpability we bear for the current state of the planet, this is entirely appropriate.
But the rhetorical focus of environmentalism on the planet obscures the fact that what human beings have done to the Earth pales in comparison to past disasters hitting our world, from massive asteroid strikes to super-volcano eruptions killing off 90+% of the Earth’s species. And in every case, the Earth has recovered, and life has once again flourished.
We sometimes make the conceptual mistake of thinking that the way the Earth’s ecosystem is today is the way it will forever be, that we’ve somehow reached an ecological end-state. But even in an eco-conscious world, or one devoid of humans entirely, natural processes from evolution to geophysical and solar cycles would continue. The Earth’s been at this for a long time, literally billions of years; from a planetary perspective, a quadrupling of atmospheric carbon lasting 10,000 years (for example) is little more than a passing blip.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much greenhouse gas we pump into the atmosphere or how many toxins we dump into the soil and oceans, given enough time the Earth — and its ecological systems — will recover.
But human civilization is far more fragile.
Human civilization could not withstand and recover from the same kinds of assaults the planet itself has shrugged off in eons past. We remain entirely dependent upon myriad Earth services and systems, from topsoil and clean water to carbon cycles and biodiversity. Activities that undermine those critical services and systems quite literally threaten the survival of human civilization. The fundamental resilience of the Earth’s geophysical systems simply means that, when we ignore our effects on the planet, we’re simply making ourselves disposable, just another passing blip in the planet’s long history.
In trying to minimize the harmful impacts of human activities upon the global ecosystem, environmentalism supports the continued healthy existence of humankind.
To me, this too is entirely appropriate. Despite its many flaws, I’m a big fan of human civilization. I marvel at our capacity to organize matter and information, at our ability to learn from mistakes and pass that learning down to subsequent generations. Civilization — writing, cities, trade, the whole lot of it — makes us unique on this planet and, as far as we can tell so far, in our part of the universe. Destroying that through malice or negligence is the worst form of crime, and the height of tragedy.
Part of a focus upon civilization, however, is the recognition that we do not exist in isolation, that we are dependent upon an enormous variety of complex systems. As a result, our continued existence requires the continued success of those systems. In order to save ourselves, we have to minimize actions which damage and disrupt the environment.
Like any social movement, environmentalists argue over tactics and goals, and some eco-activists will disagree with my characterization of the purpose of environmentalism. But the reality is that — at least with current technologies — there’s nothing that we can do to truly put the planetary biosphere at existential risk. It will recover from what we now do, albeit in a different form than today. But what we can do is so violate the integrity of the planet’s ecosystem that the Earth can no longer support us.
Critics of environmentalism often claim that eco-activists hate humans, that we value the Earth more than we value ourselves. With very few exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth.
Environmentalism is fundamentally about making sure that human beings, and human civilization, can continue to thrive on our home planet for centuries, millennia to come. Environmentalism, in its demands for respect for nature, ultimately demands that we respect ourselves.
Photo by John McColgan of the Alaska Fire Service.
By environub at 10:05 AM ON 08/19/08
So true.
By ben tye at 10:08 AM ON 08/19/08
very interesting article, the planet does not care what form it takes and nature has no understanding of it's mortality. We need to protect biodiversity so we can allow future generations to benefit from the joys and resources of the natural earth
By Rob at 10:13 AM ON 08/19/08
First, make a bigger comment box.
Awesome post! You're right on a lot of levels.
I suggest a smarter approach than environmentalism to this problem. Let's use as the example nature's near-extinction to success model to demonstrate to mankind how IT can evolve from the brink of nothingness. Once successful, mankind will then cherish and protect nature.
By JArch at 10:14 AM ON 08/19/08
Great article.
By zeroSignal at 10:16 AM ON 08/19/08
Excellent article, with some pretty interesting insight. While I do admit that I see myself as eco-conscious, I would hardly call myself an environmentalist. However, this does put things in a different perspective, and yes, I find that I agree with your point of view, and in a sense, I've realised that what you're saying is what I've been thinking, only probably not as in many words or as well put.
Bravo!
By JimMcDish at 10:17 AM ON 08/19/08
Seems the planet has taken care of itself this long, I am confident it will continue to do so.
RD
www.Privacy-Center.net
By j_king at 10:39 AM ON 08/19/08
Glad this article got digg'd.
This has been my viewpoint for quite some time. I gave George Carlin a standing ovation when he hit the same point home.
More people need to realise this and get realistic about environmentalism.
Radicalism and activism tend to divide the issue into a partisan conflict.
This is a very real issue that affects both sides no matter who is right.
By Marvin Wagijo at 11:44 AM ON 08/19/08
Nice article. I also made an article about what humans are to this world. http://uselessbrain.com/2008/07/22/humans-vs-the-world/
By Max at 11:55 AM ON 08/19/08
The environment is important. Environmentalists are dangerous. Pay attention to their "solutions" to environmental problems; Most are indistinguishable from the totalitarianism that ravaged the 20th Century. If you go all kumbaya and forget what these people really want - control of everyone - you will be clubbed like a baby seal.
By JustGottaSmile at 12:09 PM ON 08/19/08
If anyone is interested in more on this idea they should read some of Daniel Quinn's books. Also, Jared Diamond's book Collapse is great too.
By richardTheThird at 12:18 PM ON 08/19/08
This newfound manic focus on environmentalism really highlights the arrogance of the human race -- do we really believe we can destroy something as robust as the Earth? This widely accepted belief, that we can truly damage the Earth past repair, recalls an almost medieval mode of thought that we, humans, are somehow special, or privileged. (I fail to see how self-awareness or intelligence is any more of a privilege than say, the prehensile trunk of an elephant, or the echolocation capabilities of a bat.) We are, just like every other life form around us, products of evolution, and our actions, therefore, are no more "artificial" or "unnatural" than those of any other organism. If we kill ourselves off (quite likely), I would see it as an example of natural selection at work: no more, no less.
By Jamais Cascio at 1:31 PM ON 08/19/08
*Destroy* the Earth? Not yet, as I said.
But significantly disrupt the natural systems we depend upon? We've been doing that for quite awhile. The Earth as a whole is resilient, but the various component systems (carbon cycles, topsoil production, thermohaline cycles in the ocean, etc.) *can* be knocked out of balance by the aggregation of human activity. The accumulated results of the actions of billions of people over many years can be startling.
The point of this essay, as I think most of you understood, was not to say that environmentalism isn't important or that the environment can be ignored, but that actions taken without regard to consequences will bite us in the butt well before they do anything approaching permanent damage to the planet.
And Max, not only are we environmentalists out to get you, we're hiding under your bed right now. Boo!
By TBAR at 2:35 PM ON 08/19/08
While I am in general agreement with the basic premise, I hasten to add that the dependency upon Earth systems and services is not limited to human civilization. Countless other species exist and have existed that are also at risk.
Yes.. millions of species have gone extinct due to natural disasters of all sorts. (including many of our close ancestors) But there is one factor that is not mentioned (only implied) in this essay and that is that we as a species are AWARE and CONSCIOUS of these issues. That implies an obligation and an imperative to prevent environmental damage to these systems and to help save other species besides ourselves. It is incorrect to think of all these other species as a system .. rather they are unique creatures and deserve a chance for survival in a natural world that has not been radically altered by too much human technology.
The tragedy is that there are way too many creationists and fundamentalists who would dispute your argument because they refuse to acknowledge the interdependency of all creatures.. the ultimate anthropomorphic world view.
So that is our real challenge.. changing the way humans think..using our best and worst evolutionary adaptation. Self respect happens most often in the form of compassion for all living things.
By richardTheThird at 4:16 PM ON 08/19/08
TBAR, I fail to see why consciousness of these issues is sufficient justification for an obligation to prevent environmental damage. What makes consciousness so special? Or any different from any other biological adaptation of any other organism? (This gets into the nature of what is consciousness, but that's an entirely different can of beans. Whatever it is, however, it has a basis in the physical nature of our brains, and, therefore, is a product of natural selection.) And I believe it is you who is guilty of the ultimate anthropomorphic view of stipulating some sort of fundamental Right to Live for every organism. No organism is, however much as it may seem, human, and does not "deserve" to live any more than any other organism. The only "Right to Live" any organism has stems from its capabilities, and its ability to adapt to changes.
By richardTheThird at 4:27 PM ON 08/19/08
And Jamais, I was using "Earth" as an umbrella term for the various sub-systems you just mentioned.
True, we can seriously mess up all of these sub-systems, but I think both the Earth (i.e. the planet as a whole) and the human species are robust enough to survive whatever disasters we have the ability to create.
So while I agree with your point that our mucking about does not seriously endanger the Earth as a whole, I disagree with your position that the environment cannot be ignored. It can, and even if it is, both the Earth and humans will survive.
By TBAR at 6:18 PM ON 08/19/08
RichardTheThird.. we can debate forever as to what consciousness is.. however where it came from is exactly what makes a genuine human. i.e. homo sapiens sapiens. As mammals with DNA programming humans have a networked connection to all living things on this planet and evolved from and through them. When you say no organism is human, do you mean humans as well? Do we in a civilized world deem that other humans only have a right to live because of their capabilities and ability to adapt? I think not. What I fail to understand is why you think that agreeing to preserve natural and indigenous habitats is akin to being anthropomorphic. The problem has been that for centuries, humans have had the anthropomorphic attitude that human culture and existence is somehow superior over all other species and natural systems and that we have the right to decide what lives and dies. The consequences of this have been disastrous. What I am saying is that when organic consciousness arises.. then comes compassion.. that moment of inexplicable awareness of all life. It may be due to natural selection.. but I think it somehow goes farther than that. It's like a special kind of quantum feedback loop. Consciousness is not necessarily a human attribute but it is what persuades me to try and save all sentient beings.. right now.
I didn't say that every organism has some kind of fundamental right to life.. what I said is that species should have some chance for survival. Humans are taking away those chances by causing the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. In about a century, half of all species of life on the planet could be extinct. IF we remain a civilized species and are aware that human beings are causing it, (implies consciousness) are you saying we should just let it happen or do we preserve those species and natural systems that support us and all other life?
RichardTheThird, I also see a duality in your statements when you say that "we are quite likely to kill ourselves off" but later say that "Earth and humans" will survive. So which way is it.. the light or the darkness? Do you really want to play God?
By Coconutfarmer at 7:04 PM ON 08/19/08
TBAR I support your views. Richardthethird, there's no need to be a hater. We need to build bridges and learn to communicate with each not make such strong one-sided statements of our superiority over everything and each other. We are part of the environment, every living thing on this planet is comprised of the same matter. The cells that make up your body hold instinctual memories that transcend a time of humans on this planet. When we damage our ecosystem, we damage ourselves... Fortunately, humans are a hardy bunch, so our greed and ignorance may only set back the civilization clock by a few thousand years but how many times do we have to go that route before we realize that sustainable living not only allows us to live lives in harmony with our surroundings and each other, it also ensures that we protect the knowledge we have cultivated over the past several thousand years. That knowledge, once it has been processed and understood by our ever growing intellectual community will allow us to understand everything and make the informed decisions we'd all like to be truly capable of making.
The earth may survive humans but what can we humans achieve if we can survive ourselves?
By TheGuyde at 5:44 PM ON 08/22/08
So what do we do about it?
I would love to be patronizing, but only accidentally; Truth be told, you guys are very profound, probably out of my league. But just the same, I thought that most of the world is now conscious of the environmental impact created by human. Although I am of the opinion that awareness is essential to problem solving, this does not preclude offering solutions. Now there is a novel idea! Please forgive my sarcasm; yet another flaw I need to correct.
Jamais, I am not Max, but I checked under my bed; you are not there and it is all clear. “Jamais” is a French word that means never in English; Is it a coincidence?
Since I believe we all agree there are negative environmental impacts, and even if we don’t, there is enough consensuses for sure to drive out of the mud. So what do we do about it?
I suggest there are multiple approaches that can make a significant difference. On one hand, there are recent technological that are underdeveloped; not to say shunned. On the other hand there is the shunning attitude itself, which is certainly not least.
Since March this year, a company called EESTOR has announced a new battery technology which technology they label as “ultra-capacitor”. This battery offers triple the longevity compare to the closest competition, namely the Lithium type batteries (15 years versus 5 years); It has at least twice the capacity at half the footprint; and last yet again not least, more then ten times the potential for recharge, I mean that it can take 5 minutes to recharge (using appropriate technology) compared to 4 hours or more for a similar alternate technology.
Of course, while this technology would be adequate for city driving, on the Highway, another technology is making leaps and bounds. Solar energy, while I am not convinced would be sufficient to sustain driving under optimal conditions is getting closer. If not close enough, could a smaller gasoline engine, like the ones in scale cars or airplanes could power an alternator to supply the electricity required?
I have heard a lot about fuel cell technology, and I am convinced that the oil magnates are also pulling string behind the screen to slow the advances in those areas. This brings me to the major issue.
Our venerable leadership is obviously not advancing the technology in an efficient manner. Whether it be the federal government, special interest of the Bush family oil fortune, or the Congress bought with Pac money, or the large Corporations, it seems evident that we do not have government of the People by the People. If we are to make the impact we want on the environment, I dare argue that we need to motivate them, rather than the other way around. Do you have any suggestion?
By ady at 5:55 AM ON 08/27/08
The Earth will be just fine but without us..
By CydoniustheMystic at 5:57 AM ON 08/28/08
Here, Here! I think its about time someone else got through the rhetoric of global catastrophe and got to the heart of the matter. I agree. Humans can no more destroy the earth with a 1949 Dodge than they could create a talking dog. The counterpoint to the environmental movement is we have little effect on planetary systems. The sheer arrogance of the entire fascist evironmental juggernaut is both astounding and astonishing.
A case of the finest beer for Mr. Cascio. Now pardon me as I use my last 10 gallons of LEADED gasoline to fire up that '49 Dodge to get that beer.
By Dagney at 5:49 AM ON 09/02/08
Birth Control will save us.
By Jasmin929 at 11:30 AM ON 09/02/08
Exactly.
By Dagney at 2:01 AM ON 09/03/08
Self control, in general, will save us. Can you imagine the effect self control would have on, say for instance, AIDS? Food supply? Obesity?
And, personal health. What if everyone took their health into their own hands with an iron fist? Adult diabetes would be a distant memory.
Birth control is the big one. Trees get cut down to build houses because there are people around to live in them. No magic formula here, just, birth control. Our resources get taxed because we have people multiplying at alarming rates.
By Adam at 3:32 PM ON 09/03/08
This article is spot on. (As are the comments about birth control)
We live in a world that has more humans walking around than have ever died in history.
When I was born in 66, there were 6 billion people. Now there are 12 and in 40 years there will be 24. That's a 400% increase in less than 100 years. Can you imagine a world 80 years from now with 48 Billion people?
It's not about the planet, its about saving ourselves.
Thanks for this post.
By affetaWooda at 8:56 PM ON 09/22/08
nice work, guy
By Hetejeazica at 10:33 PM ON 10/05/08
i am gonna show this to my friend, bro
By Ricjunette at 5:16 AM ON 11/07/08
You write very well.
By Bebhin at 2:37 PM ON 11/09/08
Well said.
By Daniel Edlen at 10:18 AM ON 11/20/08
"shake us off like a bad case of the fleas." Yep, Carlin.
Well said. I think if more people got this part of the message, this connection between environmentalism and our primal fears, we'd be further along in changing our ways, maybe even halting the tragedy of the commons.
It's so egomaniacal to think we humans could "destroy earth". We instinctively just want to keep the species going. That's the fundamental motivation for all our mass actions.
My small part: reusing vinyl records as my canvas.
Peace.