Jared Diamond ends on a positive note in his writing "The Ends of the World as We Know Them", stating that "To save ourselves, we don't need new technology: we just need the political will to face up to our problems of population and the environment" (412).
While I agree with his statement, I am wary of his optimism because of the trends we have seen since this piece was published in 2010. America's, and the world's, overarching response to climate change has been to seek technological solutions. We are pursuing alternative fuels and investing millions in biofuel research; fuel cells have been tested; solar panels have been improved upon as well as wind turbines. Diamond says that we do not need these inventions to save ourselves from extinction, but it seems as if the public at large has blindly put their faith in science to solve the new problems we have created.
We, as Americans, love our freedoms. And that includes the freedom to consume as much as we want and produce as much as we want, even pollution. There are been attempts to persuade Americans to turn off their lights, save electricity, move into cities, change their lifestyles to have less of an impact upon the earth. However, we stubbornly cling to our lifestyles. This is not wrong, it is obviously in human nature as seen in the examples Diamond gives of those cultures who failed to adapt. However, it is detrimental. It seems, again, that we are turning heavily to technology, trying to lazily buy our way out of our problems, instead of make lifestyle changes.
Humans on earth are more easily connected now than ever. Which is great in some aspects (providing information and examples of distant, collapsed cultures) but it means that our impacts are no longer local but global. As a whole, our race, as McKibben points out, has been able to alter the ecosystem and climate. Instead of "stabbing a man [the earth] with toothpicks" we can not "alter the power of the sun... change the patterns of moisture and dryness... breed deserts" (48). Some nations are adapting and achieving set goals at reducing their carbon footprint and investing in renewable energy, but we can see a sort of tragedy of the commons occurring. The countries, such as the U.S. and China, who do not want to curb pollution or consumption are taking advantage of the lack of international controls and are hurting the atmosphere irreparably. We can see these trends in the failed Kyoto Protocol and the more recent meetings in Buenos Aires.
To return to Diamond's quote, I would ask: Do we, as Americans, think that our nation will have the "political will" to enforce changes in behavior instead of simply relying on technology? Or will we try and invent our way out until it is too late? Is Diamond wrong, and can we solve global warming with new inventions (such as pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the atmosphere)?
________
Lastly, a question stemming more out of my own curiosity and relating to the McKibben reading that people can post about... is there a place, a park, or a natural landmark that you personally visited and it now no longer exists or has been drastically changed? McKibben says there is no more existing wilderness so what is a meaningful place to you that you have seen thus destroyed by man- OR alternatively, one that remains pristine.
Stemming from your last question, I think Overton Park is a great example of a place I (being from Memphis) have visited that has remained pristine. It remains to be an old growth forest, meaning it has not been altered or touched for a very long time. In the 1960's/70's there was the potential that Interstate 40 would run right through the middle of Overton Park and they even began preparing to destroy the park. But a great example of how people have been able to put nature above laziness, or should i say convenience in this matter, was when the proposal to run I-40 through overton was stopped by the supreme court but initially memphis residents who grouped together and started the Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. So in this instance I guess it would have been more convenient and cheaper to run I-40 through Overton but we are lucky that memphis citizens were able to recognize the rareness of an old growth forest and fight to preserve it.
ReplyDeleteThanks to your post I now see more clearly the distinction between changes in lifestyle and using technological innovation as a way to solve (or in reality attempt to solve) environmental problems caused by human lifestyles. I do think it is true that the majority of Americans are doing little to change their lifestyle to slow our environmental impacts. Those who are consciously making efforts to change their lifestyles are in the minority. On the flip side, I do think a majority of Americans (and here I'm speculating as I haven't looked up empirical numbers to back my thoughts) do realize that something needs to be done to curb our environmental impacts. As you point out, however, they're relying on technological innovations to solve the problems. On a positive note, at least there is widespread realization that something needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteI do believe it is true that we cannot rely solely on technological innovations. But the American government has definitely passed some legislation in the 21st and 20th centuries to address the human role in environmental degradation. That is an example of "political will" being exercised for the good of preventing environmental degradation. As a democratic society, however, politicians have to have support of their actions in order to remain in power. So without the support of the public in the government passing regulation upon their liberty of consumption their exists a significant detriment to the power of political institutions to solve the problem. Plus throw in corporations that lobby against environmental regulation since it will hurt their profits then the problem becomes even more complicated. I suppose at this point of my reasoning then I come back to the problem both you and Diamond point out about humans themselves. I think widespread human self regulation is doubtful to occur. At least until a complete critical point in which the "insulation" Diamond points out is destroyed and the problems have significant adverse effects directly on them. My hope though is that moderate human self regulation will occur and that American support for increased governmental regulation on rampant consumption will allow political will to work side-by-side with technological innovation to address the problem before a critical stage is reached that will lead to another potential historic collapse.
_________
I suppose their are a few national parks and forests that I have visited that remain relatively pristine. I would have to say, however, that my favorite places that I regard as being natural or at least separate from the chaos of human life have definitely been affected by humans. I like the seemingly neverending fields of the Mississippi Delta. But obviously these places are completely touched by humans. The Mississippi Delta was originally overgrown by trees, much more swampy, and totally at the mercy of the Mississippi River until humans manipulated the Delta to support agriculture and the Corps of Engineers built the levees to control the River. Even my individual place to "get away" from the "human world" is clearly touched by humans. It's a place called Mhoon Landing on the Mississippi River. No one ever goes there but there's lots of concrete and an abandoned casino from when the casino economy first came to areas along the riverbanks of the Mississippi. There is, however, plenty of old-growth forest that humans haven't really affected behind the levee system that I sometimes visit when I'm home.
I like your distinction between actually changing the ways we interact with nature, and inventing new technology to allow us the least amount of change possible. I think, as someone in class mentioned today, that the public is not enthusiastic about large changes (that would require any extra amount of effort) unless we face some immediate threat. Similarly, seeking possible answers in technology instead of making the changes that we can be certain would help the environment is another way to put off change/work. Technology may be able to save us, I think, but if we want to prosper in the very, very long term, we need to make the effort to drastically change our ways.
ReplyDelete------------------------------
I grew up on a farm, and behind my house, you can see a mile of fields and the beginning of a forest beyond them. I would often take long walks with my dog to that forest. Being at least a mile away from anything meant that it was quiet enough that you could hear birds and other animals, and you really could forget those human things. Because that forest land would occasionally flood, it wasn't really being used, so my family decided to let hunters use it. I don't have any problem with hunting, but now I can't go back there and forget humans. I have to be really careful now (especially with a giant, tan labrador), and any time in that forest is spent (mostly) worrying. It's a completely different place, JUST because of the presence of people.
Referring to your last question, I being from Memphis have been to plenty of parks that have always been special to me. One that I hold close to my heart is Shelby Farms. Shelby Farms is known to be one of the largest parks in the nation within a city. This park has a preservation of buffalos and the natural beauty is beyond description. It is a place where Memphians bring their families to have a nice stroll in the park or have a big gathering such as BBQ.
ReplyDeleteAround the year 2000 though the city of memphis was thinking about taking a lot of Shelby Farms' land to turn Walnut Grove into a highway for people coming from work in downtown. This met with great opposition because people of Memphis did not want to destroy this beautiful park. The debates between both sides lasted for a very long time but the city council decided not to build highway next to Shelby Farms because it did not want to destroy the park. Now the park is better than ever and a few years ago they opened a bike trail in Shelby Farms that goes about six miles into the city.
As I mentioned in class the day that we discussed the McKibben reading, I do have a place in nature that is very important to me. I'm from Huntsville, AL, which is on the edge of the Tennessee Valley. My father's house is up against Huntsville's largest mountain, Monte Sano. Since I was 6 years old I have gone on frequent hikes and bike rides on Monte Sano's various trails; and, because I am in Memphis for most of the year my Monte Sano excursions with my father are more sacred.
ReplyDeleteThe view of Huntsville from the top of Monte Sano has changed remarkably in the past 14 years. The small city's skyline has transformed, now including an entire new outdoor mall and at least 7 new subdivisions. Furthermore, the rocket that sits on the side of I-565 is Huntsville's number one landmark and used to be barely visible from the top of Monte Sano. (The rocket is an attraction of the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, which is a large tourist attraction and home of Space Camp). Unfortunately due to Huntsville's growth in population and importance to programs such as NASA and Missile Defense Agency on Redstone Arsenal, the rocket sticks out like a misplaced, oversized toy among the now sparse trees.
When thinking of Huntsville's drastic environmental makeover, I agree with McKibben's theory that there is no existing wilderness untouched by man.
I definitely agree with your statement that we tend to rely more and more on technology to solve our problems. Rather than actually facing up to our faults and attempting to cut back on our consumption and destruction, we turn to new discoveries and theories in hopes that we can preserve our world while also preserving our lifestyle. I think that in order to "fix" many of our environmental problems, technology should be used; however, using less resources and building a global environmental consciousness is more important. This really cannot be achieved without some sort of national policy; I believe that Americans would balk at such a measure, as we value our freedom really more than anything else. However, I think it's important to enact such policies while we still have time left. Eventually there will be no turning back from the path we find ourselves on. Thus an informed and brave political leader is needed to introduce such policies and convince the public of their merit.
ReplyDeleteThe woods surrounding my own house and yard has always been a special place in nature for me. My family lives on one of the foothills of the Appalachians; we've often had close encounters with wildlife such as foxes, coyotes, snakes, raccoons, and innumerable white-tailed deer. Some of my first memories involve exploring the woods with my younger sister or playing in the snow, the entire world seemingly soundless and hushed. Recently a new house was built directly across a small patch of forest (without permission). A lawsuit was leveled against the man who built the house; however, he won, and more houses are in plans to be built. I realize it is somewhat selfish of me to want to keep this wilderness pristine except for my own house, but we have learned to communicate and coexist with the forest there, and I fear that the destruction of the woods to move in more people will take away that private world of ours.