Updated: 7/7/06; 2:47:52 PM.
Connectivity: Spike Hall's RU Weblog
News, clips, comments on knowledge, knowledge-making, education, weblogging, philosophy, systems and ecology.
        

 Sunday, June 23, 2002

Self indulgent interactions of developed nations with their environment (http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew940713.htm)

Summary: Our ecological systems are degrading in response to our 'abuse'. How much is enough? Will we accept an end to our quest for more? Will we accept limits?

How many years are enough? How much food is enough?

How much beauty enhancement is 'necessary' and at what expense?

How many children should/can we have? (Exponential population growth has been projected by many as the central variable to occur by 2030?)

How much freedom [e.g.,to bear arms, to degrade the environment, to irritate and insult one's neighbors] is enough freedom?

The answers are complicated. But part of the answer has to be based on boundary. In other words, for whom or what?

Food for whom when one system's increase in food may mean loss or death for another?

Generally speaking to extend one system's boundaries and or energy/matter processes is to jostle, at the very least, one or more other systems.

When humanity (6 billion of us) decides [whether actively, as in a vote, or by default] that more babies will be born and more of the old will live longer .. we have a metascale jostling that amounts to disruption of a catastrophic sort.

It seems that that which is motivating each of us as individuals in western european and asian and islamic cultures alike is some version of more. I think whoever is going for the more is also turning a blind eye to the expense (What's the problem? I've got the money? What's the problem my army's big enough?) if it's measured in anything other than means to purchase or take the 'more' involved.

Where are the limits?

What will be the consequences without them?

What would existence be like if we decided to have an absolute limit of one child per couple for the next 20 years?

What is self-limiting and what are the economic, philosopical, political bases from which such self-limiting can occur?

Example: An old person's philosophical movement starts that says that no artificial interventions of any sort will be used to extend life (other than eating well from locally grown food)?

Example: A cross-cultural global organization sets up a global information network that reports the indisputable facts about natural systems into which humans intrude. Its premise is that if all know the damage we cause it will be far less likely that spin-meisters and dollars can distort in favor of systems trying to hide the natural destruction that would occur from following a corporate plan to expand.

Today's current events example: Societal consideration of the issue of menopause. In the last twenty to thirty years we have moved from not discussing it to discussing it quite a bit. Our discussions have led to better understanding, yes, but also an increased reliance upon medications on the part of women who enter post reproductive years. Today, in an article entitled 'Menopause forever' a reporter for the New York times reports on perimenopause. The bottom line is that this aspect of female existence will be moved from the category as natural (and thus is something to accept) to a disease (and therefore something to fight). As it is moved into the disease category we enlist doctors and phaarmacists and drug companies to help us maintain our vigilant defense against aging. And this sort of sequence is at the center of our problem of self-limitation.

In short there are a couple of things going on here that matter to the enough discussion. First, our greed for more and our fear of the great unknown , death, are being manipulated by corporate entities (directly and indirectly) eager for larger markets. Second, we are accepting this manipulation as we fail to ask how much [in this case, of the years of 'peak' youthfulness] is enough?

In "Sustainability, Hierarchy, Culture, and More:Thoughts from Russia" Zabelin (January 2, 1994) captures some of the concern with,:

Thousands of hectares of forest have been wasted on paper to discuss what needs to be done for humankind to avoid an "environmental catastrophe.

Very few write about what can realistically be done and what cannot possibly be done: it won't be published, and it's dangerous - bearing "bad tidings" has been notably risky to maintaining one's lifestyle, even ones life.

We "just" need to transfer the train of human civilization onto different tracks, changing the previously announced route and destination. This can be done very quickly (one can count the years) and in a coordinated manner on the entire planet, since the "environmental problem" has not been solved in any one particular country. We need to convince/force/or otherwise make the populations of North America and Western Europe decrease their consumption by about five times, and give the saved resources to the residents of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Simultaneously, we need to convince/force/or otherwise make the residents of Asia, Africa and Latin America not have more than two children per family, and even better - one. And we need to convince/force/or otherwise make everybody eliminate their armies with their weapons, and everybody together should happily work on constructing a kingdom of universal justice on Earth. "Just" this.

"Just" this is derived from the simple fact that the planet Earth has limited resources and can support a limited number of animals of one species, including the type "human." And if there are more of such animals than there should be, then the natural limiting mechanisms are unavoidably turned on. There can be no exceptions.

Generally speaking, the species "human" (inasmuch as it is a "logical" species) has abilities to turn on its own mechanisms of limitation. The fact that I am writing these lines and that you are reading and understanding them is proof of this. We can control the birth rate; we can economize electrical energy; we have an understanding of justice, etc.

On the other hand, in its present state, the species "human" does not have the opportunity to make a feasible decision on turning on mechanisms of self-limitation. The fact that even in the most developed countries, no more than 10% of the population votes for the "Greens" is proof of this. More than 90% votes for various parties of unlimited material and technical growth.

We know what needs to be done, but we cannot act logically. So, we unavoidably fall under the influence of natural limiting mechanisms. Aggressiveness (crime, inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts, nationalism), stresses (heart diseases, alcoholism and drug abuse, suicide, social apathy), epidemics (AIDS, cancer, flu), and the pathology of pregnancy are only some of the most normal results of overpopulation (whoever does not believe me, observe fish in an aquarium: it's extremely instructive). Pollution of the environment, or more specifically, accumulation in the environment of non-biodegradable products of human activities (plutonium, strontium, cesium, heavy metals and dioxins are no more than specific products of human activities) is responded to by a general poisoning and weakening of the organism, and manifests itself in the growth of the death rate and the decrease of the birth rate."


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Connectivity: Spike Hall's RU Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 

June 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
May   Jul

GeoURL



Spike Hall is an Emeritus Professor of Education and Special Education at Drake University. He teaches most of his classes online. He writes in Des Moines, Iowa.


Google

Article Feeds from Guest Blogger(s):


My BlogLinker Connections:/
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.