Due to the observation of recent trends in demographics across the globe, I have concluded that the population carrying capacity for human beings is dynamic relative to the adoption of a particular cultural paradigm. In this case, a cultural paradigm is, qua, the blueprint for the basic components of a society: economics, the arts, political organization, social organization, ideology, technology, and urban design. Our ignorance of these factors in determining population growth, social order and ethics has only reinforced the Malthusian-centric perception of our population being “unstoppable.” The social ecologist Murray Bookchin explained the dilemma as follows:
By reducing the need for social sophistication to biological simple-mindedness [?] the “worth” of human beings and the “worth” of nonhumans denies to our species the enormous role that conceptual thought, values, culture, economic relationships, technology, and political institutions play in literally determining the “carrying capacity” of the planet.
One of the interesting aspects of considering questions about population is that these questions lead to an exploration of even deeper questions. These include issues about human consumption, cultural imperatives, ethics and morality, and eventually spiritual balance.
In acknowledging this, determining what factors effect birth rates, death rates or even the general carrying capacity are not always easy to find. Anthropologist Daniel Quinn believes that food output is a primary factor in determining population. He goes on to argue that, for example, a two percent increase in food production will yield a two percent growth in population, regardless of cultural considerations.
If this is true, however, why then are many industrialized nations actually de-populating themselves in terms of fertility rates? The United States alone could nearly support the world’s population with its domestic food output; yet, as of the year 2000, it supports a menial two hundred eighty million. Most technologists argue that birth control is the sole cause of these trends, but how can one forget the importance of changes in lifestyle? For example, with the advent of the women’s rights movement, women were able to enter the workforce. This, in turn, changed the substance of parenting. Large families were no longer economically desirable. Small families made a better lifestyle possible.
Ecologists fear that the growth rate in third world countries, coupled with their increasing efforts to become industrialized, will surely bring ecological collapse. General consumption must be considered the primary factor in this. Under the direction of our dominant cultural paradigm, we are consuming a finite resource base at an ever-increasing rate, and as we consume more, we give the population more room to grow ever larger. If we continue to consume at the rate we do, we will surely bring forth ecological collapse.
Under the “grow or die” mentality of our socioeconomic system, even a relatively small population could plunder the earth of all its life. However, in the past, population pressures were not always the cause of ecological disaster. During the early 1800’s as the western United States was being colonized, nearly every buffalo in its territories were eradicated. At fault was not an ever expanding population, but, rather a small group bent upon killing off every last buffalo.
So it seems, what we need is not a smaller population, but a “paradigm shift” upon how we interact with the earth. Only if we incorporate sustainable practices into every component of society can we achieve an egalitarian human future. However, questions about sustainability are important. Can a sustainable resource base support a population of six billion? I would hope so, but as a result we would probably not have the consumable excess most modern, first world nations do. Further, what would it take to implement a resource base that is capable of carrying human beings into the distant future?
The social ecology movement fancies that it has answers to such questions. They believe we must abandon capitalism, for, as most ecologic economists know, capitalism has no mechanism for sustainability practices. In essence, the system forgets to count the trees it is tearing from the earth. Nevertheless, many economists argue that the privatization of “natural resources” by individual firms may cause such firms to treat those resources as long-term variable costs; in turn, calling upon the need for sustainable practices. However, this is not a central methodology to capitalism. The initiative of firms is to maximize profits in whatever way they can. This is most likely the case because the market stands as the primary rewarding mechanism for our society. In other words, money is, in its many uses, a central medium to the function of our society, and to receive vast amounts of it is of high social standing. For example, the Japanese whalers have found that if to “liquidate” all available “natural resources” into assets, those assets will give them higher profits if they simply utilize the interest returns from them. As they once claimed, they are not in the business to preserve the life of whales, only to earn money.
Mutuality is at the heart of the social ecologist’s government. Independent communes interact in a libertarian municipality that enforces economic and social equality. Members of the commune frequently gather to discuss and agree upon the commune’s needs and policy. Equality, to the social ecologist, produces a high degree of social capital. In other words, when individuals of a group are all considered equal, they hold much closer trust relationships and respect for each other. In turn, this strengthens the cohesion between all components of their society, in the end creating a higher awareness of the surrounding environment. One could argue that this social essence is the causa sine qua non of creating an ecologically balanced society.
However, in the context of ethics, they adopt a sort of “socio-complementarity” which claims that although we are intimately a part of the natural environment, human beings are potentially the most advanced life forms on earth; thus, following a particular cultural paradigm, may “naturally intervene” to release their “full potential.” Acknowledging that all creatures of the earth intervene in, or utilize their natural environment, the idea of domination is dependent upon culture. This stands as a far cry from anthropocentrism, or human-centrism, which sees human dominance as the primary force in the human-earth relationship. Nevertheless, what is to become of our dominance inside the limitations imposed by the social ecologist’s relationship to the environment?
If people simply hold no respect for the earth as central to their own existence, then how can they be truly sustainable? Ethical systems bring forth more than a mere imposition of a sort of “eco-mysticism.” Real world examples have been shown to actually improve the degree of efficiency in sustainability practices. This is seen in the Menominee forest of northeastern Wisconsin, where, although the forest is subject to harvesting, the Menominee people hold a “quasi-traditional” relationship to the forest. By holding fast to cultural ideas of sustainable use of resources, they are much more precise and conservative in what they cut than their American competitors. This, one could argue, yields a much higher long-term output, actually setting their business as one of the most efficient logging practices in the world.
One may ask if the “socio-complementarian” mentality of the social ecology movement could actually fall to ruins, again producing a sort of “free market ethic?” The movement does see the need for extruding a respect for First Nature, the ecosystem, but is that respect enough? If we are to consider ourselves upon any sort of a higher plateau, will we then see little need to protect and respect all else? Superficially, this still may work as long as we try to preserve the global ecosystem, but if such a system of ethics is enforced, people may become anthropocentric, rising up against their newly adopted way of life, once again promoting privatization and exploitation. In other words, to alienate the human from nature is, in itself, a mark of death. Today, this is a complicated situation because, historically, the belief that we are indeed above nature has been ingrained within our minds. Along with the “glimmer” of our technocratic society, little incentive exists for the individual to, in an anthropocentric context, sacrifice so much. This could return us to the place where we began. We could again, easily, fall back into the pattern of emphasizing the free market to exploit other forms of life.
For this reason, I turn to the deep ecology movement’s ecosophic perspective of the natural environment. Deep ecologists portray an intrinsic value upon all life in, of, and as the ecologic Self. They see natural law defining the proposed “rights” upon all living things - in that to exist; other forms in existence are invariably sacrificed. As seen with eastern mysticism in the ying and yang, a spatial balance is necessary. For positive to be, negative must be conquered and conversely, for negative to be, the positive in turn, must be retaken. This brings forth a cyclic effect because, in the end, we die and return to the earth to be reformed, or if you say, reborn into new life as part of this infinite cycle. As a result, deep ecology stresses that we are to hold a holistic respect for this process, giving an ultra-conservative tone to the idea of “utilization.” This returns us to the idea that all forms of life are equal inside the cycle of sacrifice and rebirth. With the agreement of such equality, the possible decomposition seen in the social ecology movement’s system of ethics would not be as likely.
Although I strongly support the reconstitution and eventual formation of a dialectic “ecological spirituality” as seen in the social ecology movement, I also feel the need for there to be a frontline consciousness movement that acknowledges the relationship between the human being and the earth. This, I believe may be what is needed initiate the cultural paradigm shift we so desperately need. Moreover, humanity has much to learn about morality, protecting its own interests of survival, and the interests in the existence of earth itself. This is a journey which may take thousands of years, if we are indeed successful. So, I say to all, let us partake in the initiation of our very future.
Published: 5 years, 10 months ago
Leave a comment in the form below.
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post a comment.
Latest entries