I find this kind of article worrying. It clearly claims that the only true way forward is "to abolish the industrial society".
I think that's a very limited view of the situation.
Whenever faced with a big new problem, there are two ways to get past that problem: either you backtrack, regress back to times when the problem didn't exist, or you move forward, and figure out ways to solve the problem without turning your back on progress.
This author effectively advocates turning our backs on progress, giving up the last few hundred years of development. He would have us go back to living in small self-sufficient communes, rather than focusing on growth and progress, to "save the planet". This suggestion is dangerously wrong. It is not "solving the problem", it is running away from it. The way through this problem is forwards, not backwards.
Ultimately, there is only one reason to "save the planet": so that we can enjoy it. There is no point in saving the planet if it means sacrificing ourselves along the way. AS the author rightly points out, killing ourselves to save the planet misses the point. Well, so does regressing back a few hundred years. We are who we are, we are a people/species who want to enjoy our lives, realise our potential, look to the future, move forwards, built greater, better, bigger things. That's basic human nature. The proposed solution goes against this basic human nature, and so it must ultimately fail (but it can probably cause endless misery before finally being thrown in the bin along with communism, theocracy, feodalism, and other Bad Ideas).
It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the 21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th.
I'm all for the good things in modern life, dentists, technology &c &c and I don't believe that the author is explicitly against this either.
Rather his main point was that we-the-people have been manipulated into thinking that the onus of environmental destruction is squarely upon our shoulders, as opposed to the meta-shoulders of "industry".
The whole back-to-the-land ideal is flawed and short-sighted, as he suggests making changes at the personal level is pointless if mandates at the government/global level end up being the cause of all the damage. Sweeping change is needed but of course this doens't mean stand at the barricades waving gaia flags revolution. It's just that revolution in a che-guavera/1917 fashion is far more romantic than revolution in the form of sensible change brought about by public opinion & lobbying and all that.
The article isn't worrying, it's just wrong. We can easily reduce US emissions by 80% without having to destroy the industrial economy. In fact, the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.
The people who think that reducing emissions means destroying the economy are just idiots. California is well on their way to doing it already, and they have by far the strongest economy of any state.
the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.
Really, California has a strong solvent economy. Yes they have a high gdp, but their government is in serious debt. I realize that their problems aren't only or possibly at all because of pushing an environmental agenda, but I wouldn't use California as an example of how environmentalism makes sense economically.
Measuring the economic effects of environmental legislation by looking at government debt is like measuring the speed of your car by looking at the price of apples.
I'm all for a high-quality, environmentally-friendly lifestyle, but the way to do this is forward, through technology and innovation. Not by moving back into teepees.
While it is informative to know that showering for a short period is not an effective way to conserve water in the grand scheme of things, there is no doubt that it is critital for us to conserve water. The important thing is that the awareness and sense of responsibility is present. That good-will can be transferred from ineffective actions to effective ones, and we'll be able to craft effective - and not extremist - conservation policy.
It is critical for us to solve the water problem. It is not critical for us to conserve water. If we can solve the water problem by another way, so much the better.
Indirected good will is a dangerous reservoir of activity that could be directed in directions both good and bad. Throughout history, this sort of thing has led to tyrants and other political disasters.
lol good will is dangerous? You manage to invoke Hitler from saving shower water. You can spin anything to look like its looming Fascism, but I suspect you've been reading a bit too much Erich Fromm.
I invoke Godwin's law. Wanting to save water fascist? Jesus man, get a grip. Is everything that might inconvenience you in any way a danger of fascism?
In Atlanta, we've had a drought - we use almost all our local reservoir for non-industrial use. We almost went on rationing last year. If we had more efficient appliances, we wouldn't be in such trouble. Is that fascist?
"It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the 21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th."
"Throughout history, this sort of thing has led to tyrants and other political disasters."
The connection with tyranny is so tenuous that its hilarious that its being upvoted. "People are motivated. That is dangerous."
People that blame an amorphous faceless other named "industry" always make me suspicious - suspicious that they're morons. The output of "industry" is things we, the people, use directly or indirectly. Saying that 90% of water is not used by humans, but rather used by "industry", is a mischievous and deceitful fallacy; we use that water by consuming the output of industry.
By taxing industry's use of things we'd rather "they" use less of, and taxing industry's output of things we'd rather "they" create less of (such as pollution, CO2, etc.), we are actually taxing ourselves: these taxes will increase the cost of those outputs of industry which use and produce more of what we want them to use and produce less of. By embedding the harmful effects in the price system, we can alter the balance of supply and demand and shape industry to where we want it to go, not because it's punishing "industry", but because it's punishing individuals, i.e. people like us.
This article raises a few points you already knew if you read The Economist that aren't wrong but aren't unusually insightful either. Other than that, I really don't like that it separates civilians from politicians and corporations. We form and staff our corporations and elect our politicians.
The Us vs. Them mentality doesn't work because there's only us. Those in power don't want to live on a destroyed planet any more than we do, and even if they did, we're the ones who keep voting them and their policies into office. The destruction has occurred almost entirely in democratic countries over the last century.
One point is missed: if we start making the small changes in our personal lives, we are more likely to notice the changes that need to happen in our corporate lives -- we are our corporations, after all.
Further, they hint around it in the article, but the single biggest thing that we can do personally is move away from eating and using animal products. I'm still an omnivore, so I'm certainly not doing my part, but I have started eating meat less than I used to.
Further, they hint around it in the article, but the single biggest thing that we can do personally is move away from eating and using animal products. I'm still an omnivore, so I'm certainly not doing my part, but I have started eating meat less than I used to.
Or, don't buy industrially-produced meat. It's quite possible to raise animals in a sustainable manner, but it requires us to not eat meat at every meal.
I think the author is railing on folks who think that by driving a Prius and taking shorter showers, they are saving the world. It's not the practices are wrong; it's that unless they are coupled with a greater awareness of how poorly industry treats our natural resources, they are worthless.
I had long assumed that most people realized that short showers, recycling plastic, driving small cars, turning off lights, and all these other little things don't actually affect the environment at all. We all do them, but only for the sense that we're doing something. Not because they actually do anything.
Over time though, I've met enough people that get worked up enough about these things to realize that many people actually think they are making a difference.
Things like driving small cars and using less electricity do make a difference in the aggregate. But they usually happen because industry has been taxed, one way or another - either through government or scarce resources - so that the price signals in the economy change, and big cars, electricity, etc. become more expensive and we buy less of them.
Would you please explain how driving a small car (let's take a Prius as the obvious example) has exactly the same effect on the environment as driving a gas-guzzler? I don't get it.
Because you are comparing apples to apples when in fact you should stop eating apples and eat spinach instead. In relative terms, the Prius vs. Hummer comparison is easy. Prius is considerably better than the Hummer. The problem is that in absolute terms, other than different amount of fuel, both of them require almost the same materials and resources for construction, maintenance, and lifetime operation. Prius drives on the same roads as the Hummer and hence needs the entire highway infrastructure to function properly. Prius uses plastic, metal, and synthetic materials and so does Hummer. Sure, it uses a lot less of each but the factories that produce these compounds still need to be built, serviced, and fueled. The spinach to this apples problem? Better trains and transportation across the entire US such that Walmart no longer needs a fleet of 10,000 trucks.
The big picture is not the comparison between using Prius and Hummer. It is whether automobiles should be the primary mode of long-distance transportation across a nation of 300+ million citizens. The author's point is that the pride from driving a Prius is overshadowing the anger and fury that we all should have at the lack of real, efficient solutions. Prius is a wonderful band-aid but it is not a cure and will never be a cure.
On a personal basis, it is in the best interest for everyone to use fuel-efficient cars, and reduce energy usage. However, this does not mean that doing wonderful "green" things will make more than a minor dent to the real problem of what is actually going on. It is very comforting to use textile bags instead of plastic at the grocery store but it's really not such a big deal in absolute terms. Not having to import every single item from China across the ocean is. The externalities of cheaply manufactured products are borne by China and the world as a whole. The benefit goes only to the shareholders and consumers of Dollar stores. What's the easy fix? There isn't. But using textile bag makes you feel wonderful and proud enough that you no longer think about the big picture and thus have no real voice when it comes to changing the big things.
If you come across someone with major arterial bleeding and apparent internal bleeding then do you attempt to stem the external bleeding or do you just leave them because you can't do anything about the internal bleeding. Personally I'd apply first aid and call an ambulance, others it seems would counsel that I leave you to die as one can't immediately solve the whole problem.
Do your bit for sustainable living short-term and use your vote to progress long term solutions. Use your consumer power to promote good governance by businesses.
He's not saying don't do anything. To use your metaphor, he's saying: Don't put a bandaid on it and claim you saved the man's life.
Moving towards personal sustainability is OK, but there is no use pretending it is a major fix. It is more of a start, a way to get people thinking about the world they live in. After that the real work must be done, and not just harm reduction, but actively fixing the things we've broke.
In fact the article points out one thing that struck me as particularly insightful: Current environmental thinking suggests we can only live in such a way as to harm our environment. This suggestion is way too convenient, as it reminds us all that we are sinners (environmentally). I think that maybe this sort of thinking is what bothers people about environmental types: it feels like religion, not any sort of fact based solution.
Environmentalism is a religion, no doubt about it. The full extent of my involvement and support is in raising taxes for things we want industry to produce and consume less of, period. Price signals in the economy will do the rest of the work. Piety not necessary.
"Why personal change does not equal political change"
Good point but in fact you need to reach critical mass for the personal change to become change on the whole. When a large enough number of people changes in private the private becomes truly political.
If you just change in private and don't tell anybody you might nit change anything.
With critical mass you should of course apply pressure tactics to gain momentum. The boycott or recently the "carrot mob" are great examples of that.
I agree. To build a society around gain and growth is a bad idea. Several large civilizations have fallen (think Romans etc) due to this simple mistake. Modern capitalism is heading the same way.
Society will divide into those who adapt and those who take. The latter will always fall.
While I agree somewhat with your sentiment, I don't think your reference to the Romans would really stand up to analysis. The problems we face today don't have much to do with being overrun by visigoths.
I also don't like your dichotomy between "those who adapt and those who take". We are all of us taking, every second of our lives. Everything we possess or covet on our silly little planet is the gift of our great benefactor the Sun, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I think that's a very limited view of the situation.
Whenever faced with a big new problem, there are two ways to get past that problem: either you backtrack, regress back to times when the problem didn't exist, or you move forward, and figure out ways to solve the problem without turning your back on progress.
This author effectively advocates turning our backs on progress, giving up the last few hundred years of development. He would have us go back to living in small self-sufficient communes, rather than focusing on growth and progress, to "save the planet". This suggestion is dangerously wrong. It is not "solving the problem", it is running away from it. The way through this problem is forwards, not backwards.
Ultimately, there is only one reason to "save the planet": so that we can enjoy it. There is no point in saving the planet if it means sacrificing ourselves along the way. AS the author rightly points out, killing ourselves to save the planet misses the point. Well, so does regressing back a few hundred years. We are who we are, we are a people/species who want to enjoy our lives, realise our potential, look to the future, move forwards, built greater, better, bigger things. That's basic human nature. The proposed solution goes against this basic human nature, and so it must ultimately fail (but it can probably cause endless misery before finally being thrown in the bin along with communism, theocracy, feodalism, and other Bad Ideas).
It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the 21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th.