Wilderness ethic holding us back?

After listening to the first of three lectures from week 3 revolving around the evolution of ecological thought during the post-war period, I was struck with a few questions (ok maybe just one question so far):

In contrasting the wilderness ethics of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century and contemporary ecological thinking, I was wondering if wilderness ethics is holding us back from the necessary paradigm shift required to ensure a sustainable future?  Wilderness ethics while wonderful for the preservation and conservation of natural habitats in its time, and well intended, is so entrenched in the way environmental issues are framed presently.  It allows for the separation of humans and their surrounding environment, and the notion that unconstrained development can occur in certain places, so long as we keep the environment safe in other places.  This line of thinking is what has led to fractured and disjointed ecosystems.

Earth from above

A great deal of discussion this week has revolved around balance and tensions between conflicting ideologies or epistemologies.  I keep coming back to our own system of government and economics to see if there are any emerging properties that might reflect some of the tenants of ecological thought.  I guess the basic principles of capitalism assume that the market, over time, will be self-regulating, and in the end will act in the best interest of the consumer to create equality, or rather opportunity, but this notion is presupposed, along with much of economic theory, on the idea that humans will always make rational decisions.  Unfortunately humans are not always rational and the basic principles upon which our most influential agencies have been constructed are inherently flawed.  So where does the regulation come from, who do we want to manage our “house”?  Do we want it to come from our governments?  I guess not, as we have elected a federal government that promotes the rights of the free market economy and seeks to eliminate or “streamline” any regulatory processes.  I think it’s important to maintain perspective when critiquing the Harper Government, it’s not as if they hide their agenda:

                “A belief that the purpose of Canada is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy.” (http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/  )

It’s nice of them to guarantee prosperity to everyone!  They do allude to the environment as being “a vital part of our heritage” (sounds very past tense) but don’t expect any policies that will aid in the promotion of its viability.  So how do we bridge the gap?  How do we allow people to see “the forest as more than just a collection of trees” (Odum, 1977)?  It comes down to individuals, and individual reflection on what really matters, then perhaps we might end up with a government that reflects a collective belief that “action based on holistic values and properties is a viable alternative to development on the basis of competitive exclusion alone” (Odum, 1977, p. 1291).

I guess part of the problem lies in the fact that modern technology has moved people in developed countries a few steps removed from the natural environment, and has thus diminished our (I’ll throw myself into the mix) sense of equilibrium as the resulting feedbacks from our excessive consumption are delayed.

I struggle with what to do, do you work for change within the boundaries of a system that has led us to where we are at present?  Privatize natural resources; add monetary value and individual ownership to entities that are presently without rights?  I don’t think so, it feels counter intuitive.  As Moncrief (1970) writes: “The forces of democracy, technology, urbanization, increasing individual wealth have led us down this path” (p. 511).  “The environmental problem is a human problem and has its roots in a distorted and unbalanced perception of existence” (Al‐Damkhi, 2008).  It would seem irrational to search for solutions within the very processes and belief systems that have led us here.  Odum (1977) suggests that “it is in the properties of the large scale, integrated systems that hold solutions to most of the long-range problems of society” (p. 1289).  Maybe we just need some new photo’s of Earth from space so that people can once again view Earth as a whole!

References:

Al‐Damkhi, A. M. (2008). Environmental ethics in Islam: principles, violations, and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65(1), 11-31. doi: 10.1080/00207230701859724

Moncrief, L. W. (1970). The Cultural Basis for Our Environmental Crisis. Science, 170(3957), 508-512.

Odum, Eugene P. (1977). The Emergence of Ecology as a New Integrative Discipline. Science, 195(4284), 1289-1293.

Week 1 The roots of ecological thought

Week 1 the roots of ecological thought

Opportunity Cost

The objective of this Blog is to share ideas and insights related to the course:  The Biosphere and Ecological Sustainability: The Idea of Ecosystems.  In this first week we have explored a variety of readings and lectures aimed at examining the roots of ecological thought.  Where did these ideas come from and where are they leading us to?

Perhaps a more poignant question would be: where are we headed without these ideas?  Our current societal trajectory has us landing in some pretty scary places, but it remains important, in fact vital, not to get sucked into all the doom and gloom, because our trajectory is not fixed, and we have never had more tools available to us that facilitate the spread of information and new ideas.

Let us now reflect on a week that began with the discovery of Uranus and ended with a discussion on conspicuous consumption.  A couple of things jump out at me:

·         The Kuhn (1962) reading made me want to explore simultaneous innovations that have occurred in isolation.  I was always intrigued by the fact that numerous civilizations that existed without contact past or present from the outside world, were able to develop similar technologies.  More intriguing even, is the fact that so many aboriginal cultures existing in different corners of the planet developed belief systems that mirrored each other.

·         Discoveries are a cool form of a positive feedback loop.

·         I think it’s important to remind ourselves that cash economies are not inherently evil.  Just like a subsistence economy (which we often romanticize) it is a system that evolved as a means of managing resources, a system that has become more complex, as more variables were introduced, and larger populations came to rely on it.

·         The discussion on conspicuous consumption was very stimulating and it brought me back to an economics term (as I know we have many “economists” in our class): Opportunity cost.  This describes the connection between scarcity and choice, as measured by the loss in value by the choice not made.  Our opportunity cost is growing exponentially (in both monetary and non-monetary terms) each day we as a collective choose to continue to consume our resources at a destructive rate, each day we continue to believe in a system that promotes unlimited growth, and each day we continue to value the attainment of wealth above all else.  What is the total opportunity cost of the new Federal budget?  Choice after choice made for the perceived benefit of an unsustainable system.

                                                    http://thesystemmd.com/?p=1028