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.