While I do agree with the notion that humans’ relationship with nature is broken, especially in the post-industrial age, I am also of the opinion that there is more to be said about the rhetoric surrounding the push for environmentalism. In a very general sense, environmentalism could be described as a concern for the wellbeing of the environment and the subsequent movement for its protection and ability to prosper. The argument for environmentalism is then deepened by those who condemn human domination over the earth and cite a lack of empathy for natural life as a major factor for this dominion. The issue arises when you consider who, what particular demographic or group of people, is spearheading these movements. I think it’s important to account for the role that privilege may play in who is able to make these standardizations about how much energy should be put toward acting sustainably. For this reason, I pose the question which I will attempt to navigate in this post: Are the roots of environmentalism entrenched in elitism?
I am economics major concerned with how to bridge the apparent gap in reasoning between economic expansion and environmentalism and as such take classes whose philosophies often directly contradict one another. One of the great umbrella concepts in modern economics is called the Great Enrichment. This phenomenon describes how over time, mainly since the 17th century, economies and living standards across the globe, by a measure of GDP per capita, have risen as a result of innovation. GDP per capita measures the total amount of output or consumption in a country per year and divides that figure by the country’s population to reveal the average consumption per person in some constant prices to adjust for inflation. This measure doesn’t necessarily account for income inequality, but it does have a strong correlation to it, that reveals a general increase in living standards for all people. It should also be noted that this enrichment has occurred sooner and at a more accelerated rate in some countries compared to others.
One of the main contributors to the Great Enrichment in more recent years, from the mid-19th century until now, is called the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution which is built upon the work of the Nobel-Prize-winning, American agronomist Norman Borlaug describes the invention and diffusion of high yield variety crops and intensive agricultural methods such as the use of fertilizers and pesticides. This innovation in the agriculture industry has led to a 51% increase in GDP per capita by 2010 across 83 different economies.
Here arises one of the disconnects between innovation and environmentalism. The use of pesticides and genetic modification of plants for mass production is generally frowned in the environmentalist perspective. However, the introduction of these technologies has led to an increase crop and food production and thus a decrease in starvation and hunger for masses of people. Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, actually argues that although some environmental lobbyists are fighting the good fight, many are elitists who have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger like he and so many others have.
Under the economic framework, there are tradeoffs, or alternatives, to any choice. In this case, Borlaug chooses increased agricultural productivity and thus environmental degradation in lieu of what he asserts to be widespread hunger. The disconnect here is that sometimes humans struggle to survive or have their basic needs met and do not always have the capacity to make choices that are environmentally sound. Perhaps this is not the correct way of thinking, but still, it’s easy to make normative statements about how much empathy one should possess for nature when operating above a state of crisis. I do not personally believe that environmentalism is rooted in elitism, but I do think the point of perspective has some relevance within the argument. Moreover, the argument for sustainability should instead be centered around the mutual health benefits enjoyed by both nature and humans due to environmental perseveration.
I really enjoyed this post,
I’m a Philosophy, Politics, & Economics major, but I do not focus too much on the economic aspect. Your post taught me the term the Great Enrichment so thanks for that.
Though, I do love the philosophy aspect of my major and in that I have discussed the boom that you term. John Keynes, even during the Great Depression, saw this Great Enrichment occurring and predicted exponential growth. He thought that this growth would one day meet most of the population’s absolute needs (like food) to fulfillment. Additionally, he thought that this would satisfy human desire and we would get bored without work due to technological improvement. Being bored is not so bad if you want people to support environmentalism. It gives people a task to work forward too.
However, older theories like David Hume thought that even though capital would boom, human desire would never cease. Our relative needs would keep us working and never satisfied. In this case, we would never stop innovating or polluting because we always want more.
I guess my point/question is whether or not we will ever get there. Are people going to spend their leisure on environmentalism or will we always strive to become the relative best? My belief on human nature is not as optimistic as Keynes.