Environmental theory and collection of ideas/Environmentalism and survival

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Human activity has harmed Nature even in the antiquity, for example, many trees have been cut down and the elephants have disappeared from North Africa. But since the Industrial Revolution, the development of humankind has become so much quicker that it endangers not only Nature, but humankind itself too. In the Cold War, the opposing forces hoarded so many weapons of mass destruction that could have destroyed humankind in case of another world war. Since then, there were more and more countries which were able to create such weapons, so the danger has not ended in the beginning of the 21st century either. Afterwards, as technology advanced, newer sources of danger have appeared, for example, if someone created a virus deadly for humankind with the use of artifical intelligence and gene technology. But not only the extinction of humankind should be feared, but the rise of human suffering too. In the beginning of the 21st century we entered an age when the detrimental effects of global warming appear, the cheaper energy sources of humankind run out, the soil and freshwater run down more and more, the natural life of the oceans and primeval forests is going to lose areas more and more, human population would continue to rise and the rich get even more technological power. In human society, the mentioned problems could cause famines, maybe wars, and an economic crisis bigger than the previous ones. It is possible that the international environmentalist agreements will not be observed in the crisis, and this could make the problems more serious. Thus humankind who have gone far from Nature will probably suffer much, and even cannibalism can happen, but there is a great chance for the survival of the species. If humankind does not go extinct in the short term, small pests could cause problems in agriculture in the long term. What can we do in this situation?

We can start living more friendly to the environment, we can join to the environmental movement, and we can even be activists in order to reduce the future suffering in some degree. This is just like symptomatic treatment in many cases. However, if we do not only want a temporary solution, then we should find the root of the problems, and we should deactivate them. It is obvious enough that the world has changed much because of humankind's scientific and technological advancements, and problems have become greater because of overpopulation and mandkind's extravagant lifestyle. Humankind should realize sooner or later that population size should be limited, otherwise it will be limited by something worse, which comes with greater suffering. Sooner or later the irresponsible wastage, like the wastage of one-time use packaging material should be lessened to the minimum too, because it is not sustainable. For the sake of environmentalism, it would be better to lessen them sooner, and we too can make smaller steps in order to diminish them. By the way, the most important goal now is survival, and for this purpose it should be made sure that the countries which can create nuclear weapons do not use them, and people do not use other fatal technologies either, if possible. It is not enough to just disarm nuclear weapons, because people could quickly recreate them again in case of a war. Instead, such an educational and political situation should be created where the production and usage of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction becomes difficult and meaningless. Humankind should learn to forget what is worth forgetting, and it should deal with the people of Earth's different nations more and more justly.

The environmental consciousness is present in humankind, but it is a sad experience that both the private economy and the democratic politics served short-term interests, because buyers and voters have chosen the better standard of living instead of sustainability. If it goes on this way, we will probably not be able to prevent the expected crisis, and we have to take care of our own survival. We should understand what dangers are waiting for us, and how we can avoid them in our own lives. There are people who tend to prepare for a sudden, complete collapse, and their movement is called survivalism in English. They learn about emergencies much, store food and learn to use guns. There are also people who tend to prepare for a great economic crisis instead, and learn such a profession that will be needed in the crisis too. There are poorer ones who might better not beget children. There are richer people too, and they have more opportunities to prepare for the crisis. It is worth for a rich person of being surrounded by such allies whom the rich person supported before, they being grateful to the rich person. The rich person might do it well if he/she prepares to be self-sufficient and self-defensive with these people. Besides self-sufficiency, producing means of sustenance might be a way to go too. Concerning this issue, it is interesting that if someone prepares for his/her own survival, by that he/she probably helps the survival of humankind too. Because if someone prepares for the collapse, then he/she would like to reduce his/her dependent situation, and if dependence on trade lessens in the world, then the consumption which harms the environment probably lessens too.

Call for more arguments to support or disprove this theory or ideas!

Further reading[edit | edit source]

Rachel Carson - Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962)

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency - Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War (1975)

Lester R. Brown - World on the Edge: How to prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse? (Earth Policy Institute, 2011)

Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich - Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? (Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 2013)

Jorgen Randers (Report to the Club of Rome) - 2052 - A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012)