Human nature and the power of the wealthy result in a willful blindness that could have devastating effects.
It’s hard to be optimistic about humanity’s future. Our overpopulated world faces a lack of human rights, disrespect for the rule of law, endemic corruption, war, terrorism, and grotesque inequalities of wealth (in 2005, the world’s three richest people had assets greater than the combined gross domestic product of the poorest 47 nations). And we’re drawing down our environmental capital: It’s been said that if everyone in the world lived like the average North American, we would need several planets to support us.
“Suddenly, we find ourselves in the fifth great extinction ... .” (A. Khosla, president, International Union for Conservation of Nature)And as for our energy use?
“Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable – environmentally, economically, socially.” (World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency (2008))To top off this litany of woe, nearly all climate experts agree that climate change is happening, and that it is largely human-caused. True, a natural cooling period is about due, but the fear is that the pace and magnitude of the current rise in global temperature will override it. If so, significant climate change could become irreversible and cause incalculable long-term devastation, especially to those already living on the margin in the poorest countries.
The scariest thing is that this potential threat to civilization, created by the wealthiest countries, gets a big shrug from many sincere, well-meaning people who are living happily in a state of denial.
It’s not hard to poke holes in the “science” that attempts to discredit climate change. See what David Suzuki has to say about it here.
Yet despair leads to self-defeating paralysis (which may account for young people’s abstention from politics). Disaster is not inevitable; with political will, we can prevent it.
Human nature is an obstacle
Why are we so slow to respond decisively? Human nature? Our species, accidentally created in Africa by evolution’s dumb engine, has opposable thumbs, powerful brains, and self-consciousness. But, at the same time, our mammalian bodies house strong, embedded instincts, which could endanger our survival.
Originally small roving bands of omnivores, humans now live in mega-groups and have so overrun the planet that civilization may be endangered. True, our intellect and technological creativity have created an unprecedented standard of living for huge populations. But, as Roland Wright suggests in his book A Short History of Progress,
… to use a computer analogy, we are running 21st-century software on hardware last upgraded 50,000 years ago ... . This human inability to see ... long-range consequences may be inherent to our kind, shaped by the millions of years when we lived from hand to mouth by hunting and gathering.For eons, change was so slow as to be imperceptible, except for decade-by-decade fluctuation of game resources. Therefore, long-term thinking had no survival value. When things got tight, bands moved on to more favourable territory in a limitless world, and, if other humans were already there, violence decided who would survive.
According to one expert, the only place that climate change seems to be taken seriously these days is in the military. Agree? Disagree? Read more here.
In these circumstances, we developed strong, embedded, aggressive instincts; fight-or-flight adrenaline; “nature, red in tooth and claw”; a need for short-term survival, regardless of tomorrow. Yet this mindset is deeply unsuitable for the modern world, which needs long-term planning and co-operation.
We also became mistrustful of outsiders and fearful of change. Defence mechanisms like denial, rationalization, and magical thinking were helpful comforts. So were greed – for our extended family, if not just for ourselves – and a willingness to exploit others.
As civilization developed, other instinctive drives – for power, prestige, sexual access, and wealth – led to social hierarchies (like feudalism), with the strongest, smartest, or most ruthless emerging on top. Unhappily, humanity’s record under priests and kings was an almost unbroken chain of oppression, exploitation, and violence, in spite of increasing sophistication in social institutions and technology. Today, after many previous regional collapses from overpopulation or environmental stress, we face a globalized world in which the entire human enterprise could be at risk. Will climate change be the world analogue to Easter Island’s deforestation?
In a debate hosted by The Mark, Greenpeace squared off with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association over the safety of our energy pipelines. Check it out here.
There’s no time for us to adapt biologically to our new world. Our only hope is social adaptation. The problem is that, so far, the social institutions that we have invented to control our primitive lusts have been only partially successful. In our competitive societies, the most ruthless have often become our rulers or opinion leaders, while we, the citizens, seem to be idiot savants (and savages), vulnerable to psychological manipulation.
Attempts to design a better society will have to take human nature into account. And it’s not all bad – humans are capable of altruism, as well.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, we have to tap into the “better angels of our nature.”
But there is another obstacle
Although democracy has fortunately led to a decline in the violent oppression of our minorities, let us not pretend that it has solved all of the terrible deficiencies discussed above. Democracy is necessary, but not sufficient. The disparity of wealth and power among democratic countries, and within them, is shameful proof that modern governments are still failing humanity. Indeed, a credible case can be made that even countries such as Canada are governed by plutocracy, not democracy – it seems that the interests of wealthy, well-connected people hold sway, no matter what party wins elections.
David Suzuki suggests that politicians who reject science (particularly when it comes to climate change) are not fit to lead. Do you agree? Read Suzuki’s full argument here.
This is especially true in the context of climate change and energy policy, as indicated by Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report on Climate Change: “The scale of the transition” necessary to deal with climate change “has created powerful national lobby groups, which can adversely affect progress through undue political influence, media manipulation and the funding of front organizations.”
This is part one of a three-part series on tackling climate change. Part two, which will deal with how to address the obstacles to enacting climate change reforms, will appear next week.
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment