The concept of "nature" is a romantic
invention. It was spun by the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
in the 18th century as a confabulated utopian contrast to
the dystopia of urbanization and materialism. The traces
of this dewy-eyed conception of the "savage" and
his unmolested, unadulterated surroundings can be found
in the more malignant forms of fundamentalist environmentalism.
At the other extreme are religious literalists
who regard Man as the crown of creation with complete dominion
over nature and the right to exploit its resources unreservedly.
Similar, veiled, sentiments can be found among scientists.
The Anthropic Principle, for instance, promoted by many
outstanding physicists, claims that the nature of the Universe
is preordained to accommodate sentient beings - namely,
us humans.
Industrialists, politicians and economists
have only recently begun paying lip service to sustainable
development and to the environmental costs of their policies.
Thus, in a way, they bridge the abyss - at least verbally
- between these two diametrically opposed forms of fundamentalism.
Still, essential dissimilarities between the schools notwithstanding,
the dualism of Man vs. Nature is universally acknowledged.
Modern physics - notably the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics - has abandoned the
classic split between (typically human) observer and (usually
inanimate) observed. Environmentalists, in contrast, have
embraced this discarded worldview wholeheartedly. To them,
Man is the active agent operating upon a distinct reactive
or passive substrate - i.e., Nature. But, though intuitively
compelling, it is a false dichotomy.
Man is, by definition, a part of Nature.
His tools are natural. He interacts with the other elements
of Nature and modifies it - but so do all other species.
Arguably, bacteria and insects exert on Nature far more
influence with farther reaching consequences than Man has
ever done.
Still, the "Law of the Minimum"
- that there is a limit to human population growth and that
this barrier is related to the biotic and abiotic variables
of the environment - is undisputed. Whatever debate there
is veers between two strands of this Malthusian Weltanschauung:
the utilitarian (a.k.a. anthropocentric, shallow, or technocentric)
and the ethical (alternatively termed biocentric, deep,
or ecocentric).
First, the Utilitarians.
Economists, for instance, tend to discuss
the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Activists,
on the other hand, demand that Mankind consider the "rights"
of other beings and of nature as a whole in determining
a least harmful course of action.
Utilitarians regard nature as a set of exhaustible
and scarce resources and deal with their optimal allocation
from a human point of view. Yet, they usually fail to incorporate
intangibles such as the beauty of a sunset or the liberating
sensation of open spaces.
"Green" accounting - adjusting
the national accounts to reflect environmental data - is
still in its unpromising infancy. It is complicated by the
fact that ecosystems do not respect man-made borders and
by the stubborn refusal of many ecological variables to
succumb to numbers. To complicate things further, different
nations weigh environmental problems disparately.
Despite recent attempts, such as the Environmental
Sustainability Index (ESI) produced by the World Economic
Forum (WEF), no one knows how to define and quantify elusive
concepts such as "sustainable development". Even
the costs of replacing or repairing depleted resources and
natural assets are difficult to determine.
Efforts to capture "quality of life"
considerations in the straitjacket of the formalism of distributive
justice - known as human-welfare ecology or emancipatory
environmentalism - backfired. These led to derisory attempts
to reverse the inexorable processes of urbanization and
industrialization by introducing localized, small-scale
production.
Social ecologists proffer the same prescriptions
but with an anarchistic twist. The hierarchical view of
nature - with Man at the pinnacle - is a reflection of social
relations, they suggest. Dismantle the latter - and you
get rid of the former.
The Ethicists appear to be as confounded
and ludicrous as their "feet on the ground" opponents.
Biocentrists view nature as possessed of
an intrinsic value, regardless of its actual or potential
utility. They fail to specify, however, how this, even if
true, gives rise to rights and commensurate obligations.
Nor was their case aided by their association with the apocalyptic
or survivalist school of environmentalism which has developed
proto-fascist tendencies and is gradually being scientifically
debunked.
The proponents of deep ecology radicalize
the ideas of social ecology ad absurdum and postulate a
transcendentalist spiritual connection with the inanimate
(whatever that may be). In consequence, they refuse to intervene
to counter or contain natural processes, including diseases
and famine.
The politicization of environmental concerns
runs the gamut from political activism to eco-terrorism.
The environmental movement - whether in academe, in the
media, in non-governmental organizations, or in legislature
- is now comprised of a web of bureaucratic interest groups.
Like all bureaucracies, environmental organizations
are out to perpetuate themselves, fight heresy and accumulate
political clout and the money and perks that come with it.
They are no longer a disinterested and objective party.
They have a stake in apocalypse. That makes them automatically
suspect.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical
Environmentalist", was at the receiving end of such
self-serving sanctimony. A statistician, he demonstrated
that the doom and gloom tendered by environmental campaigners,
scholars and militants are, at best, dubious and, at worst,
the outcomes of deliberate manipulation.
The situation is actually improving on many
fronts, showed Lomborg: known reserves of fossil fuels and
most metals are rising, agricultural production per head
is surging, the number of the famished is declining, biodiversity
loss is slowing as do pollution and tropical deforestation.
In the long run, even in pockets of environmental degradation,
in the poor and developing countries, rising incomes and
the attendant drop in birth rates will likely ameliorate
the situation in the long run.
Yet, both camps, the optimists and the pessimists,
rely on partial, irrelevant, or, worse, manipulated data.
The multiple authors of "People and Ecosystems",
published by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank
and the United Nations conclude: "Our knowledge of
ecosystems has increased dramatically, but it simply has
not kept pace with our ability to alter them."
Quoted by The Economist, Daniel Esty of
Yale, the leader of an environmental project sponsored by
World Economic Forum, exclaimed:
"Why hasn't anyone done careful environmental
measurement before? Businessmen always say, ‘what
matters gets measured'. Social scientists started quantitative
measurement 30 years ago, and even political science turned
to hard numbers 15 years ago. Yet look at environmental
policy, and the data are lousy."
Nor is this dearth of reliable and unequivocal
information likely to end soon. Even the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, supported by numerous development agencies and
environmental groups, is seriously under-financed. The conspiracy-minded
attribute this curious void to the self-serving designs
of the apocalyptic school of environmentalism. Ignorance
and fear, they point out, are among the fanatic's most useful
allies. They also make for good copy.
About The Author
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self
Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the
West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe
Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International
(UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental
health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory
Bellaonline, and Suite101 .
Until recently, he served as the Economic
Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
palma@unet.com.mk
