Sustainability Debate

At Friday’s Sustainability debate all three sides prompted interesting arguments. Personally, I most affiliated with position three. Position three argued that sustainability is simply part of a neoliberal agenda. This is true. In society today it seems that large and small companies use the word sustainable to  “greenwash” and lure in customers. No longer has sustainability become a true goal, rather just a front or advertisement for capitalist gain. However, sustainability is much more complicated than that. It is not simply a label. Companies are given no constraint on the parameters which allow them to label themselves as a sustainable business. As a result, any company is able to advertise themselves in this way. However, sustainability is paradoxical, there is not one all-encompassing method as to how to be sustainable and what it means to be sustainable.

Also, with bigger action versus smaller action, it seems that the wealthier are the only ones who are truly able to take strides in sustainability. The wage gap has grown so large that it seems that many households and individuals simply can’t afford to be sustainable. Sustainable food, energy, and water sources cost a lot of money. Not to mention a lot of time that the working class may not have. Sure people are able to take shorter showers and ride their bike, as position one argues, but in the larger picture policy and lawmaking is the only truly effective way to take strides toward a sustainable society. We must take things on a more global rather than local scale in order to truly make the change towards a sustainable future.  

We must look past neoliberal and capitalistic labels that businesses preach to uphold. Instead, we should focus on the bigger picture and reach out to our government and representatives. Encourage big change rather than focusing on the small things. It is the only true way in which we can make a substantial difference.

 

What Is Nature?

Nature, by definition, is every landscape, plant, animal, and phenomena not created or influenced by the human race. In this sense, truly pure nature no longer exists. All of the main functions of life, water, air, and natural habitat, have been affected by humans and their wastes in some form or another. There is no such thing as pure, clean air or uncontaminated water. Nature has become more of a myth rather than reality.

When Professor Jim Proctor stated there is no such thing as nature, I was skeptical, to say the least. I thought back to a time when I was in The Westfjords of Iceland surrounded by nothing but sky, ocean, cliff, and grass. The place appeared as if it hadn’t changed since the dawn of time. A picturesque idea of raw, untamed nature. However, I thought, well how did I get there? A road. This place, which appeared to be so wild and undiscovered, had in fact been influenced by the hand of man. Therefore, it was impossible to say that this could truly be real nature for it was influenced and contaminated by humans. I was then puzzled by the fact that if one were to go off the road and wander mindlessly into a trailless territory, would they not find themselves in a spot completely untouched. Nonetheless, the very fact that we know of its existence, puts forth some form of influence on the area. The way in which we talk and contemplate these places is bringing its existence into our own reality. The very fact that places like the Westfjords in Iceland exist and are given a name, means that these places have been impacted. Therefore, it is non-viable to say that its existence is undiluted.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as something natural. Natural occurrences constantly surround us but are also constantly changing as a result of our actions. It is the very essence of nature that has gone extinct. The human influence has touched every speck of this earth in some entity or another. There simply is no nature.

 

Limits to Growth Review

As a human species, our capitalistic and industrial actions have caused humanity to reap more Ressources than are able to be refurbished. As a result, we release pollutants into our ecosystems at such a swift pace, that our Earth is no longer able to keep up. Have we gone past the point of no return, or is there hope to fix our mistakes in both practical and beneficial matter?

In Dennis Meadows’ book Limits to Growth: 30 Year Update, a system dynamics and theory computer model known as “World 3” calculated a series of scenarios predicting the outcome of human action from the years 1900-2100. In this study, Meadows concluded that humanity has lost all odds of recovery. That we have officially crossed the line. Essentially, we are doomed. This apocalyptic state of mind is a strong example of classic environmental thought. As the human population continues to grow at an exponential rate, and our access to resources begins to decrease linearly: we have well exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity. Therefore starvation, natural disaster, hell opening up and swallowing humanity whole, dehydration, deforestation, and loss of natural resources such as fossil fuels is all indomitable. But, can we truly trust the simulations spat out by a computer model to give us an accurate prophecy?

In a book review of Limits to Growth, renowned Professor and researcher, Vaclav Smil, highlights that this computer simulation cannot accurately account for the changing market, war, technological improvements, and societal decisions that we consistently face. Smil argues that “World 3” categorizes pollution into only one file, when in fact there are hundreds of different forms of pollutants that the earth may absorb at different speeds. He also points out the ideas and customs of people in the 1900s is going to be much different than current and future behaviors. As a result, there is no accurate way in which this computer program can make the drastic assumption that humanity is damaged beyond repair. Smil employs a more contemporary form of environmental thought. He agrees that the situation we have put ourselves in is disastrous, but that there may still be a chance of redemption.

The boundaries in which our generation is able to slow or stop the process of our imminent condition is up to interpretation. In Environmental Studies, one must learn to approach every situation from all sides and draw upon knowledge from a number of different fields. Therefore, the boundaries of environmental studies are expansive, taking into perspective what is good for the sake of humanity versus what is beneficial to our planet. We may be doomed, or we may find a solution, but it is most important that society as a whole begins to recognize that there is, in fact, a problem, and we must at least do our best to aid in the solution.