This problem relates to development, a topic I stumbled on during my time in Colorado and Patagonia. Although I am certainly a fan of conservation giant Douglas Tompkins’ prolific successes in preserving native forest and public land in Patagonia, I’ve always had an icky feeling about his ideological supposition, shared by many of the conservation elite, that all environmental problems boil down to human population exceeding the ecological carrying capacity of the earth. I also hear this idea tossed around in academic circles following a detailed discussion of some local environmental problem. Although it is almost certainly the case that the current rate of population growth cannot be sustained indefinitely, the overpopulation oversimplification is often used to hide the actual problem of lifestyle choices or industrial practices that cannot be scaled to large groups of people. It is a weak, throw-up-your-hands, nihilistic regression to absurdity that attempts to justify inaction on real environmental problems because human life is inherently messy and unsustainable. In southern Chile, I often hear the suggestion from people who burn wood that other people should be avoided because they bring wood smoke. In the U.S., I hear from people who drive an automobile to work that growth brings traffic and congestion (or my personal favorite – I can never find a parking spot at the trailhead!) In both cases, folks suggest that borders should be erected – physical or financial or otherwise – to cap the number of people who call a place home. Again, I am fully aware of the detailed literature on Earth’s ecological carrying capacity, population growth etc. but we should not let this argument continue to dominate environmental discourse in such a sinister way that evades responsibility and implies everyone else is somehow disproportionately contributing to the problem. Of course, it is exceedingly difficult to lead a life that can be scaled to the nearly 8 billion people on the planet. However, it is not unreasonable to request that folks at least attempt to lead a life that can be scaled to <1 million people living in a metropolitan area. From a natural selection standpoint, the most ethical action is that which can be successfully repeated over many generations. That is to say, instead of pursuing development policies that construct barriers to entry in the neighborhood, city, state etc. we should adopt fair ‘rules of play’ supporting lifestyles that don’t get in the way of others’ ability to go about their lives, rather than descending into the stubborn exceptionalism that generally characterizes growth conversations. Instead of continuing to insist that we occupy a privileged place of car-driving and wood-burning that other people are not worth enough to occupy, maybe we could consider the idea that our current lifestyles could be incrementally improved. I’m fully aware that making transportation and heating more expensive would disproportionately hurt poorer folks. However, from a fundamental economic perspective, car-driving and wood-burning are only the cheapest options because they rely on unquantified ‘negative externalities’ to maintain their cheapness. In the case of cars, some of these negative externalities are vehicle emissions that are proven to cause cancer, lung disease, and asthma; constant casualties from traffic accidents; and reduced quality of life for just about every living creature, including the one in the car (see the Atlantic’s ‘The Absurd Primacy of the Automobile in American Life’ for a detailed analysis). In the case of wood-burning, some of these negative externalities include cancer, lung disease, and asthma; as well as rapid destruction of all nearby forests. Next time you think about reducing your thought process down to ‘there are just too many people,’ make sure you’ve considered every possible alternative lifestyle choice that could be more efficiently scaled to your neighborhood, city, state, or country.
No comments:
Post a Comment