The most extreme outcomes feared by those concerned with the present environmental crisis is a collapse of society in a similar vein to the historical collapses of Mayans and the Polynesiasns on Pitcairn and the Henderson Islands discussed by Jared Diamond in his article "The Ends of the World As We Know Them."Of course those concerned with today's environmental crisis fear an eventual collapse on a global scale. As Diamond points out "globalization now means that any society's problems have the potential to affect everyone else" (Diamond 410). Some of the environmental problems we face today like climate change, oil dependence, lack of water, etc., may not only have the potential to "affect everyone else" but it could go so far as to lead to a global historical collapse. This is an extreme possibility that we are all familiar with but because we are so globalized and advanced the problems we face are also more global and the resulting consequences perhaps far more reaching than the environmental problems of past individual societies because we now live in a global society.
Of the historical collapses that Diamond mentions our potential plight seems most similar to the Mayans. Like the Mayans we inhabit a "lush environment" and have had problems in properly addressing the environmental problems we face unlike the 17th century Tokugawa shoguns in Japan, for example (Diamond 410). Diamond also worries that the United States has a problem of the elites being insulated from the environmental dangers facing the lower classes, which he states also contributed to the Mayan collapse.
Diamond draws hope about the future of society in that our problems are our own doing and solving them would require taking environmental problems seriously. Of course, making society as a whole and the political world actually take the environment seriously is a problem in itself.
I would like to venture two things: that the insulation he describes in the US doesn't solely apply to the elites within American society and also that capitalism itself can or could be the mechanism for adequately addressing today's environmental problems.
Diamond uses the wealthy in gated communities as being insulated from environmental problems and thus losing the motivation to support more sustainable practices. I don't really think that's a legitimate contributing factor for our current state. Firstly, some of the biggest benefactors and proponents of environmental reform are those who are part of America's wealthy elite. Secondly, I think the belief that elite wealthy Americans are insulated from the worst realities of current environmental problems applies more to America as a whole than to just a particular sector of the American class system. America itself has been relatively insulated from the worst environmental problems in terms of real mass famine, ecosystem failure, or societal collapse. I think that as a whole we are, however, beginning to realize these dangers and slowly beginning to take environmental problems seriously. The question with that, however, remains whether are we too late to adequately remedy the situation or are we changing fast enough to remedy the situation if we are not already too late.
As for my second venture, I think that capitalism and the free market will eventually play an increasing role in addressing the environmental crisis. Capitalism and the free market want never-ending growth; therefore, once they realize on a systemic level that the environmental crisis is going to be eventually become a barrier to growth and perhaps even the end of all potential growth then the market could adapt itself to adequately fix the problems. So far, though, we have seen governmental regulation have to force the free market to do so but I maintain some hope that we will see the marriage of capitalism and regulation for the end purpose of making sure the environmental crisis will not lead to an eventual historical collapse.
Your comments on Diamond’s examination of the United States “elite” population, more specifically his claim that the economically affluent are ignoring or denying the growing environmental and economic issues and your remarks on capitalism and its relation to the environmental crises were very thought provoking. Before sharing my thoughts I’ll acknowledge that I have not yet provided arguments and explanations behind my reasoning and views and that these are only skeletal outlines at best, however I’d appreciate comments and counter-points.
ReplyDeleteDiamond claims that history teaches us this “deep lesson”: A society contains a built-in blueprint for failure if the elite insulate itself from the consequences of its actions (Diamond 411). I should make it clear that while I am partially sympathetic to Diamond’s point, he does not unpack the “lesson” in its full strength or span. Diamond highlights the elite’s responsibility, but should also make it clear that the poor cannot ‘insulate’ itself from responsibility. Essentially, there is no reason to include any mentioning of socio-economic status when talking about the moral responsibility for the consequences of ours (and sometimes others) actions. Being wealthy is no excuse for not recycling or not being aware of environmental debates and information, but neither is being poor. I think this may become clearer if we consider a situation like deforestation. Both the workers cutting down the forest and the executives and companies paying them are at fault. The fact that the workers may need the money to feed their children does not alter their responsibility or make their actions any more justifiable. One’s socio-economic status may have some influence on the degree of moral response one should take or how much impact they can make but it can never provide a justificatory reason for the exemption from human responsibility. Whether you are wearing a new Armani suit, the same sweatpants you have had since you were ten, or a plastic bag you are still responsible for making sure that the trash is recycled. Is it even a cohesive idea to hold people to different moral standards?
In response to your suggestion of a “marriage of capitalism and regulation” as prevention against historical collapse, what about the theoretical and systemic levels of a capitalist world view makes you think that the global capitalist market, society can, in principle, provide solutions or adapt to these problems on a fundamental/structural level? Secondly, what are people’s thoughts on the second “lesson” Diamond talks about? He states: “the other deep lesson involves a willingness to reexamine long-held core values, when conditions change and those values no longer make sense.” (Diamond 411) Is this kind of society even possible in principle? If so, what about in a nation as large as the U.S. or China?