Decartes' revolutionary philosophy of dualism lead to this divorce from nature with his proposition of the mind and body as a diverse dichotomy as opposed to interdependent entities. Decartes paralleled the dualistic argument with the politically-charged argument for separation of church and state. From this philosophy of dualism, our forefathers built the foundation of this country, which lead industrialization and mass consumption.
As I observe the habits of the world in which I live, I see the detrimental effects of Decartes' proposition. Due to industrial advances and the resulting escalation of mass consumption, we have separated ourselves from the deteriorating world around us. As a society, we have denied the importance of the link between body and soul. We have deadened the passions of society by this denial of the spirit of ourselves. We forfeit our creativity and ignore our intuition. Without our own ideas and views to follow, we are only comforted by the tangible. The comfort found in the intangible died along with the creativity, passion and spontaneous emotions denied by society. Consequently, our quest for satisfaction and fulfillment has lead to an escalating consumption based on insatiable greed.
Deep ecologist Lynn White blames the environmental crisis that we are currently facing on the Judeo-Christians. He claims that Christianity promotes the domination of the land through the use of the word "conquer" in Genesis 1:28. With this verse as the basis of development as supported by Christianity, he claims we have built an entire nation of consumers who exploit the land for personal gain.
Genesis 1:28-31
God blessed them. "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish, the seas, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth." God said, "See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are upon the whole earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruits; this shall be your food. To all wild beasts, all birds of heaven and all living reptiles on the earth, I give all the foliage of plants for food" And so it was. God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good.
Although our society has currently reached an environmental crisis, the blame cannot be placed on Christianity. The use of the word "conquer" is only semantics that can easily be interpreted into any appropriate argument. This passage could mean that God gave humans the duty as caretakers over, rather than conquers of the land and all species. He asked man to cultivate the land and allow it to develop and grow. God blessed what he had made and saw that it was good. In this regard, he did not intend for man to destroy his creation. Rather, he intended for man to govern and protect. Through this passage and other creation passages from different religions, a basic ideal surfaces that all things were created by the Almighty Creator to each serve as a meticulously balanced component of the universe. Currently all developed nations following different religions face the same devastating economic crisis and have promoted the unity of man with nature as opposed to the separation we find through advanced industrialization.
Different religions stress the importance of respect and understanding of nature that has precedence over man's own greed and desires. According to O.P. Dwivedi, "In Hindu culture, a human being is authorized to use natural resources, but has no divine power of control and dominion over nature and its elements ... abuse and exploitation of nature for selfish gain is unjust and sacrilegious." Buddhism requires that man must understand nature to use its resources and live harmoniously as one. An analogy of a bee living harmoniously in nature portrays a non-exploitative, non-aggressive gentle attitude that men should also adopt. The bee, in his actions, does not pollute the environment, nor deplete the resource (the fragrance of the flower). Therefore, he lives within the means of his necessity and in accord with the environment.
Religion also defines a cycle of degeneration and regeneration based on practiced morality. The basis of our actions lead by humanistic reasoning transcribes into the environment around us. The Buddhist saying cittena niyata loko transcribes as "the world is led by the mind." Buddhists see the mind as a supreme entity that is interdependent with nature. The reciprocal relationship of nature and man defined by Buddhism describes an alternating cycle of evolution and dissolution based on the morality of man. Moral deterioration accelerates adverse changes, such as greed, hatred and pollution. This same principle of a cycle of morality is found throughout the Bible, with Noah and the ark, Sodom and Gomorra, and the prophecy of Revelations. Hindus also practice this cycle on a daily basis through the belief of reincarnation. The reverence of nature is highly esteemed in fear of returning in the next life as a sewer rat or a cockroach. Through the realization the results of unethical behavior, moral regeneration improves the quality of life and leads to increased prosperity, generosity, compassion, wisdom and environmental purity.
The cycle of degeneration could reasonably be the answer to the environmental crisis that we are presently facing. As a society we have claimed independence from the necessity of religion, which has decreased our morality. Coincidentally, we have lost respect for nature as well. We can use the broad fundamentals of religion as a cornerstone to return to the environment with respect and a revived sense of morality. Dwivedi maintains that "religion can evoke a kind of awareness ... that is different from scientific or technological reasoning." In his argument, Dwivedi presents three fundamental principles of religion. First, religion defends individuals existence against depersonalizing effects of the technoindustrial process. Second, it forces the individual to recognize human fallibility and to combine idealism and realism. Third, as technology gives humans physical power, religion gives us spiritual strength to grow in virtue by nurturing restraint, humility and liberation from self-centeredness. If we draw from Dwivedi's three fundamental principles of religion, we can find a powerful source of environmental conservation and protection that draws from morality found in all religious foundations and cultures.
Ideas from other philosophies can also be incorporated into the religious foundation for making ethical decisions regarding the environment. James Lovelock and Sidney Epton present the idea of Gaia as a giant living being who is composed of the earth's living matter, air, oceans, and land surface. Gaia regulates herself in order to maintain survival, with the vegetation as her lungs, her kidneys flushed by the wetlands and humans serving as her central nervous system. With this in mind, it could be reasonably argued that we are working against her by exploiting her resources and literally consuming her vital organs. As we continue to destroy her, she may see us as a virus that she will virtually flush out of her system through a variety of natural disasters.
James W. Kirchner argues that Gaia is a moot scientific theory that is nothing more than a metaphor. This basic argument defines part of the problem that we are facing. We rely entirely on evidence of scientific knowledge and do not trust our intuition regarding rational arguments based on logic. Kirchner argues that the idea that "the earth is alive" is nice, but it is not helpful because it does not scientifically prove anything. Yet this theory can be used to reason with humans on a basic level so that we can understand the necessity of respect for the earth. This argument can influence the much-needed transformation of attitudes on a broader scale than a scientific theory based on a complex chemistry equation.
The necessary transformation of attitudes can be regarded as the change from an arrogant eye to a loving eye as described by ecofeminist Karen J. Warren. Although I do not agree that dominance over women and nature is the underlying theme to our ecological problem, we do need to look at our world with a loving eye. The loving eye appreciates the surrounding nature and gives respect to the surroundings. The arrogant eye is consumed with constantly looking for ways that the environment can best benefit man. Instead of seeing the beauty in a landscape, the arrogant eye sees a favorable crop to the soil. By leaving this manner of thinking and developing an appreciation for nature, we will find new attitudes that will reunite us with the environment and prolong our existence here on earth.
Although we have separated ourselves from nature, we need to remember that each aspect of nature serves a distinct purpose within the delicate balance of our intrinsic biosphere. Perhaps animals are the closest and most intriguing set of species to humans that allows us to still connect with nature. As human beings we are granted the ability to reason, which differentiates us from all other species on the Earth. Yet our capability to reason does not make us less a part of nature than the turtle who cannot run as fast as the cheetah. We have, however, used our rationalization to transform our role in the web of life through industrialization of advanced technology. The industrial revolution has lead us into many unknown realms while separating us further from nature. As our capitalistic society developed, we took on an anthropocentric view described by Kant. This view allowed us to use nature including animals as means towards our advancement. On the other hand, many people disregard the unethical treatment of animals because they cannot reason, but the display of actual emotions is apparent. We see these emotions in our beloved pets, a lonely caged giraffe at the fair and frightened mice used in scientific testing. We should realize the value of these creatures rather than use them for unnecessary consumption or entertainment. With the rise in extinction of species and destruction of natural resources, we have been challenged by radicalists, such as Tom Regan, who essentially claim that we should regard total obligation to all of the different species. Just as we consume animals everyday, animals consume one another in nature. But our power should be used with discretion even as our increased level of consumption needs to be restrained. We should at least preserve animals to the extent that they would survive if we were not consuming them out of greed. This would return us to a more natural role in the web of life. The value of 400 mice that may hold the cure to cancer or AIDS is not measurable in comparison to the millions of lives that will be saved. On the other hand, it is not necessary for my future children to ride the donkeys around in a circle or on the back of an elephant at the annual fair. Death, as well as extinction, is just as natural as birth, but we should not use this as justification of using the diversity of our planet to continuously feed our insatiable greed.
There is no way to measure the monetary value of the natural objects found within our biodiverse planet. Therefore, we need to give intrinsic value to biodiversity simply because of its magnificent array of mysterious uniquities. Biodiversity allows nature to adapt to this dynamic planet that is contiguously changing. The depths of the rain forest may hold a species unknown to man that could solve many of life's problems. Furthermore, we should value the amazing beauty of nature with greater esteem than we do man-made replicas, not only for its aesthetic pleasure but for our lack of understanding its origins and the curiosity that it stimulates. A forest that has been logged and replanted does not contain the same mystery and enchantment of an age-old habitat. Therefore, we should respect our natural surroundings and use them with the same discretion as our fellow species.
We see that we must strive for a new sense of growth and development to obtain these new attitudes. Sustainable development could instill the definite guidelines of change that our environment needs. Robert Goodland and George Ledec define sustainable development as a pattern of social and structural economic transformation (i.e., 'development') which optimizes the economic and other societal benefits available in the present without jeopardizing the likely potential for similar benefits in the future. The word transformation denotes the necessary change of attitude regarding the outlook for the future in substantial development. Although the transformed societal attitudes are necessary, they will not make an immediate impact on the environment. In order to see a substantial difference within the next few years, governments of industrialized nations must take certain measures through policy-making decisions.
First, we need to change our relations with underdeveloped countries. As would many Americans, Garrett Hardin argues by use of his lifeboat ethics metaphor that as a nation we are already too generous. He claims that every nation has a limited carrying capacity within its "lifeboat" and that helping poor nations will only lead to disaster for the rich and the poor. He argues that giving resources will help to maintain the high rates of population increase. Yet, as William W. Murdoch and Allen Oaten contend, this metaphor is simplistic and avoids important issues that could alter the state of our environment. The limited interaction between lifeboats is unrealistic. Our government supports the cash crops that these underdeveloped countries use as financial support. We do not encourage their industrialization because it would lead to the limitation of natural resources needed for our production. This increases the economic imbalance as industrialized nations increasingly rely on less developed countries them for their growing rate of consumption. The basis of the cash crop is the cheap labor provided by large, uneducated families that make up the oppressed population of third world countries. Instead of encouraging their literacy, they are valued for the number of children that will boost the labor force. We give millions of dollars in foreign aid each year to overcome the oppression of third world citizens, but the money is primarily used to maintain the political elite who are in power. The aid does not reach the population, leaving them hungry and unable to survive, much less develop, which contradicts Hardin's second argument in lifeboat ethics. He contends that each "boat" has a fixed amount of supplies. There are enough resources in the world to feed everyone. The problem is that those people in need to do not get the resources. Furthermore, Hardin presents his argument in such a way that it seems possible for the boat to sail away. Yet the issues, as seen through our everyday international relations are real. The problems call for attention from industrial nations if we want to reduce overpopulation and encourage a more even distribution for our fellow humans in the underdeveloped third world. Through sustainable development we can find resources beyond relying primarily on the weak labor population of the third world. Although these cash crops are their prime source of income, we can encourage government-provided literacy and more developed nations with the leverage of foreign aid. Therefore, we will be able to invest in the countries with a greater benefit in return than endlessly "helping those in need" without any actual progress.
To implement sustainable development, industrialized countries also need to maintain stricter enforcement of pollution in the environment. They have not assumed full responsibility of pollution partially because it has not been clearly defined for polluters on all levels. Pollution can be broadly defined as any by product that cannot be absorbed back into nature and, in turn, changes the properties of the air, water, soil or food. We disregard the devastating effects of pollution as long it is "not in my back yard." The United States has been known to buy land from poor nations in order to dispose of unwanted polluted waste. We have also debated the idea of selling portions of our air to corporations with permission to pollute them. If certain quantities are unused or unpolluted, the company is allowed to trade off this "asset." By establishing guidelines such as these, the option of pollution is available to corporations so that it even seems validated. As we pollute any aspect of the environment, we are polluting every aspect of the environment. As discussed previously, the environment serves as one living being. We are unable to put monetary value on the environment because of its intrinsic value. Furthermore, the increased carelessness will only lead to increasing devastation, such as the greenhouse effect and increased loss of resources from hazardous waste accidents. Although we have become conscious of these problems, we have yet to realize the impact of their irreversible nature. We will not be able to develop a new ozone layer through advanced technology, nor will we ever be able to safely use the land infested with thousands of leaking barrels of hazardous waste. The respect that we lend to the environment through future policies regarding pollution will reflect our transition into a sustainable society.
Governments also need to think in terms of the most efficient means of power for the ideal sustainable world. As we turn towards new forms of power in attempt to decrease the rate of global warming, we question the efficiency of nuclear energy. In order to completely satiate the energy needed, we would have to establish numerous nuclear power plants that would cost high amounts of money. The money would include covering the preventive measures necessary to protect the environment further from possible destruction by any accidents, such as what occurred at Chernobyl and on the Three-Mile Island. The money that we put into nuclear energy development could be spent on finding more efficient means of electricity through exploring options that would not produce such volatile waste. Solar, wind or biomass power could be the answers to our energy crisis and would follow the ideal of the "upstream solution," dealing with the problem at the source, as opposed to dealing with the problem after it occurs "down the stream." These other sources of energy would not create any potential side effects that our children would have to pay for later.
Finally, if our government would change their attitude regarding growth and economics, a substantial difference could be seen in society's level of consumption. We measure growth based on the GNP, the measure of economic spending on new items produced. We already have a surplus of goods available that could easily account for our present needs for viability, as well as development. But we overlook the use of recycled goods from being part of our nation's growth. If these attitudes were reversed so that the use of recycled materials was held in higher esteem than continuous production, we could spend the money used for accounting for production waste on societal programs that are currently being cut from the federal budget, such as education. There is an entire market open to those who can produce new goods solely out of recycled material. We have seen the option of recycled products more within the market, as well as less packaging, but a new economic definition of growth would give it a greater binding to our nation's industries. "Return on investment" would result in both economical and financial satisfaction in cost/benefit analysis to our government and our society.
According to William E. Rees, true sustainable development is the natural product of a society that has a profound sense of being in, and of, the natural world that cannot be forced. Therefore, sustainable development requires a shift in fundamental attitudes and values not only in our society, but throughout the world. It would be socially and psychologically unthinkable to develop in any way that may affect the quality of life for future generations. Although we do not know what future generations will actually require for adaptation to the environment and sustained viability, we can stand to believe that they will value the biodiverse characteristic of nature as well as require the same basic fundamentals such as air, land, water and food to sustain life.
Until we recognize the spiritual and physical death of our lives, we will continue to deny the psychological effects that are physically manifested through our deteriorating environment. We have overlooked the simple answer of returning to our environment with love, respect and understanding. As part of our natural instinct to struggle for survival, we should learn to work with nature instead of conquer it. With a change of societal attitudes we can return to the basic holistic ideal of being one with nature, our mind and religion and overturn the environmental crisis that could soon consume us. Yet we will only see an immediate impact on our current environmental status if governments internationally make similar attitude changes. This would require citizens to demand government officials to implement and enforce environmentally sound policies. This cycle of shifting the responsibility from one party to another will not promote the impact that needs to take place within our lifetime. We cannot wait for the next person to begin; we have to start now.