From global warming to economics

On friday, in one of my classes, we started talking about environmental issues. We discussed global warming, the runaway greenhouse effect theory, the possibilities that warnings about these topics be more or less accurate or exaggerated, that human actions might or might not affect the environment in ways that are adverse to our survival. I was shocked at some of the views i heard from some of my students. Basically, these were that economical prosperity comes first and foremost, that it's useless to ask people to pay to protect the environment (with more taxes, or with less goods, choice or supply); that it is arrogant to think that us humans could damage such a huge life support system as that of Earth, and that we should care only about ourselves, so that future generations should not play any role in our present actions or plans. The two or three who expressed these ideas justified themselves by saying that "this is the way people are, anyway. This is the way things work."

Indeed, i was stunned, not the least because at first it seemed to me i'd come across one of those attitudinal and philosophical changes that are supposed to separate people who grow up at different times. A generational gap! I'd never come across such a thing, and to have discovered one when talking to people younger than me! Because, certainly, at their age, we would have been more positive and idealistic...

But no, this must be bull, my own fears about growing older getting in the way. The concept of 'generation gaps' is crap anyway, mac. People are always people, and no matter what age they are, they may always have ideas you can't identify with, the very genesis of which is hard for you to comprehend. There certainly are people my age, and older, and dead already, who would agree with these students of mine. In all époques, many have always used purported "human nature" whenever it's been necessary not to give a fuck about others in order to safeguard one's own interests. It all comes down to egoism and selfishness – traits that are natural in humans, indeed (but so is our impulse to violence, and we still have laws that try to curb it!).

When speaking about ecological issues, what is different about the present when compared with 10 or 15 years ago, is that there are many more potent voices out there that advocate for throwing away all caution. Take Michael Crichton, for instance, who with his novel "State of Fear" criticizes environmentalists and their warnings. He says that they all have agendas whose ultimate aim is to destabilize the current political, social and economical systems. I would say, rather, that their aim is to change these systems by pointing out some of their problems. But "destabilizing" suggests a will to topple things, which makes terrorists or terrorist tools out of environmental activists. With the current paranoia about terrorism, can there be a better way to discredit environmentalism?

Anyway, i haven't read Crichton's book, nor do i plan to. To go through a novelized version of an argument i can't stand would make me a masochist, and in spite of what a certain singaporian seems to think, i'm not into that kinky stuff. In a (perhaps feeble) attempt to judge fairly, i have read a couple of articles that describe this novel in a favorable light. Here is how a ends: "The slight warming of the earth that is presently occurring is a result of natural processes, not human activity. Consequently, there is no need to take radical action, like passage of the Kyoto Accords, to cut our carbon dioxide emissions, or to abandon industrial civilization."

HUH?!? Did you also catch that? The Kyoto Accords and cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions are being made to sound as equivalent to abandoning industrial civilization!!! And as for the current global warming being caused by natural processes, scientists are not at all in agreement about this. Indeed, there have been other periods in Earth's history in which temperatures have risen due to entirely non-human processes, yet some of these resulted in the extinction of species both larger and smaller than us. As for the current occurrence, there is no certain data or model either way; there are researchers that say humanity's hand is heavily involved in it, and others that disagree. It is also true that there are homeostatic mechanisms at work on our planet, functioning to keep the stability of the whole, but how far they can be pushed before they break down, nobody knows, either.

In an age when information can pull at us in such different directions, the best bet is caution. We cannot go with wishful thinking, because as much convincing evidence can be presented for one argument as for its opposite. We are used to deciding by simply embracing what our "instincts" say is right, but i suspect our instincts are merely the voice of our interests. We do have powers that can wreck our environment. We do know that there is much value in diversity, particularly because we cannot accurately foresee what the future may bring. So why not make the little extra effort?

I'll tell you why: because many of us would miss a few commodities, and a fewer of us yet (an tiny minority, indeed) would lose the possibility to make HEAPS of money. Mind you: i'm not saying they would lose the money; they would only lose the possibility to make even more of it. Yet still we have let ourselves be convinced that this is too high a price to pay for caution, if caution it be to cut on emissions, or to have better recycling, or a less impactful exploitation of resources.

Economists the world over continue to teach and praise an economical model that largely fails to take into account human and environmental costs. Eastern Europe, its people disillusioned by repressive regimes that falsely called themselves socialist, is an even easier prey to this new, irresponsible kind of fascism, where the individual is everything... as long as s/he can make his/her voice heard the loudest, or most convincingly. Forget about empathy or forethought.

I know very little about economics. I only took this one course in college, and all i remember is supply, demand, and these graphs that had some crisscrossing lines. Nevertheless, all (but one) of the economists i've ever talked to seem to picture the market as a perfect, infallible structure, the laws of which are as unmovable as those that physics has worked out for the universe. Isn't this the hubris, the arrogance? In fact, the market was created by us, people, without forethought or planning. It just sprang up, spontaneously, through our trading activities; economists themselves will tell you that. Indeed, this market to which we have given the reins of our whole planet is nothing but the expression of our needs and ambitions. And it even fails at that, because it is not capable of representing or providing a means to tend to the needs and ambitions of all. Moreover, mind is not fully a part of it, and only in as much as it can be used to serve those interests. Compassion and empathy are left out, as are forethought and caution.

We are trapped, and we don't see it.