Owning a piece of property requires you to find ways to understand, appreciate, and ward off externalities that may drive the property to ruin, and considering the property in every one of your dealings creates an avenue for value appreciation.
The same can be said about the earth; it is our property, only but this time, it is on loan from future generations, and as such we must behave like responsible caretakers which we haven’t been so far. Hence, it begs to point out the problem to be; how to incorporate anthropology into the ever intricate mechanisms of the environment to the effect that development would be mutual and interconnected.
This research attempts to review the various human interactions with the environment over time, from the different periods in history to the different events that characterise human existence. What we expect at the end of this paper is to create a personality for the environment and expose the unfair treatment the environment has endured through different points in history.
Keywords: Capitalism, Social ecology, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Economic growth, greenwashing.
Eco sociology/Social ecology theory
For the theory that would guide this paper, the social ecology theory or the eco-social theory has been selected. It is a conceptual theory that examines the correlation between ecological and social issues. It is a communalism-birthed radical political ecology theory that opposes the current capitalist system of production and consumption (Bookchin, Murray, 2006). The theory presents ecological problems as emerging principally from societal ills and imbalances, in particular from different forms of hierarchy and domination in systems, and seeks to remedy them through the framework of a society adjusted to human development and the biosphere. The goal of social ecology theory is to create a moral, decentralised, united society that is guided by reason (Bookchin, Murray, 2007).
Social ecology, also known as human ecology or the ecology of human existence, develops the scientific foundation for analysing vital activities and governing socio-ecological systems, including norms and regulations governing natural resource use, labour protection and human health, sanitation and hygiene, environmental impact assessment, regulations for environmental impact audits, guidance manuals, engineering and technological solutions (Kulyasov, 2017)
It’s been discussed many times and now we’re seeing the effects of anthropogenic global warming manifest in today’s increase in world temperature, engendering other impacts that pose threats to all life forms. From our dependence on primitive fossil fuel energies like coal to transitioning into more “sophisticated” fossil energies like natural gas and oil, which single-handedly has taken the world from the primitive society it once was to a more advanced and interconnected global village. Hence, it is indeed incomplete to not laud the achievements so far, like the steam engine, internal combustion engine & automobiles, locomotives, modern factories which are a result of the invention of machinery, and many more.
And ever since, this lifestyle has been the standard of the world, to grow and keep on growing regardless of the impacts it causes, which forces one to place a deep investigation on what it means to have economic growth. But regardless of its shady translation into the standard of living and ecological buoyancy, what is true is that the need for growth, that is the necessity to improve living conditions and level of affluence has brought us to this point, a very high point that we’ve built off unfairness to people and environment, some might say.
Much of this growth could be attributed to an economic system we’re quite familiar with, capitalism. It was seen as the major driver of the industrial revolution in the world, and the most common of its form was laissez-faire capitalism translating to “leave us alone” explaining that people at that time wanted the government out of the economy and allow the people carry out their economic affairs as long as it wasn’t illegal. This revolutionist idea was instigated by a period in time when governments had absolute power and control over the economic activities of the state.
Growth vs Environment
The sum and substance of this backdrop are to highlight the very period in time when the large-scale abuse of resources both human and natural started and continued over time, due to the laissez-faire that was common around that time which essentially gave the people power and liberty to decide their relationship with resources, that led to grave abuse of these resources.
The notion of capitalism can be likened and called out here as it fastens a growth that is not sustainable. But when we get too accustomed to it we neglect the consequences, which of course include the environment. And what we also choose to ignore, although is obvious in retrospect, is that the growth of this current economic system is only for a selected few to the detriment of many, but this is not to downplay the good this economic system has brought, what is meant here is that when the good and the bad effects are compared side by side we see that the norm cannot be continued.
In a publication by Economics Help, Pettinger explained the environmental impact of economic growth to include increased consumption of non-renewable resources, higher levels of pollution, global warming and the potential loss of environmental habitats. And as proof of that statement, the size of vertebrate populations has decreased by an average of 60% between 1970 and 2014. Today we are experiencing the mass excavation of resources in several parts of the world in a way that wreaks destruction and death on both human lives and biodiversity.
In Congo, which is the largest producer of some of the world’s major resources, including critical minerals like cobalt and coltan, due to poor environmental and resources regulations tied with corruption, we see mega-companies resort to despicable senseless ways to acquire these resources. Companies like Apple, Tesla, and Microsoft, to mention a few, are accused of deforestation, resource depletion, aiding and spurring the deadly conflicts, trafficking, and slavery of children who work for more than 10 hours at mines to sustain the production in these companies. Due to these and many more, the UNEP pointed out key findings of the state of affairs in the country. Some of the things uncovered were:
- The DRC has the highest level of biodiversity in Africa, yet 190 species are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Elephants and mountain gorillas are among the species under threat.
- The country’s rapidly growing population of nearly 70 million people – most of whom directly depend on natural resources for their survival – is threatened by intense international competition for raw materials, which is adding to the multiple pressures on the DRC’s natural resource base.
- With half of Africa’s forests and water resources and trillion-dollar mineral reserves, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) could become a powerhouse of African development provided multiple pressures on its natural resources are urgently addressed.
All of the points listed in the findings are just a formal way of saying “hey, we would love it if you stopped exploiting my resources to my detriment”. Because the horrific truth is that the chief benefactors of Congo’s resources are capitalists sitting in offices in Europe and America.
This trend of exploitation by mega cooperation/businesses will accelerate the ecological crisis if it is not halted, and could speed up the mass extinction of biodiversity. But unfortunately, instead of working progressively on this matter of mass ecological depletion, corporations decisively pretend to support more sustainable practices and ways of conducting business to water down pressures they face from the media and environmental activists worldwide, this is called “greenwashing”.
Greenwashing of course is not only tied to mega-corporations but the reason why news concerning greenwashing and mega-cooperations is predominantly because of the great potential to be destructive if unhindered and highly progressive when guided. An example is BlackRock, an American multinational, which declared in January 2020 that it would withdraw investments with high environmental risks, such as thermal coal. However, the corporation has been accused of greenwashing after it was discovered in September that the firm’s ESG funds contain more companies with a deforestation risk spanning 500+ hectares of land (Lai, 2017), and this is not peculiar to them, greenwashing could also be used by local and small enterprises who wouldn’t budge degrading the environment to secure growth and profit.
Now, in the name of growth, the entire planet has been transformed into a giant garbage dump for household, industrial and agricultural waste generated by capitalist production, distribution and consumption patterns, (Fourth International T F, 2019).
War vs Environment
Another anthropogenic cause of climate change results from differences in opinion, understanding, and interest that morph into wars and conflicts. Losses to lives and all-around buoyancy in all sectors of the country are usually casualties, but more often than not damage inflicted on the environment is sometimes not recorded.
The ecological cost of war generally begins before the conflict itself, because forming and maintaining military forces on its own consumes enormous amounts of resources. From oil to rare earth minerals, as well as water or hydrocarbons. And in addition, preserving military capability necessitates training, which in turn causes resource depletion. Military vessels like aircraft, vehicles, buildings and infrastructures are not left out as they all require energy, which is a fossil fuel.
Today’s wars are fought differently. To begin with, the list of possible conflict players has grown dramatically to include non-state actors, and it has far-reaching environmental consequences. According to Carl Bruch, director of international projects at the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the technology of war has evolved, and then its potential repercussions are vastly different. Modern chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare has the potential to unleash catastrophic environmental destruction that, luckily, we haven’t seen yet.
An example of habitat destruction was seen during the Vietnam War when US forces sprayed herbicides that offered shelter for guerilla soldiers. Over 16 million gallons of herbicide were utilized, wiping off approximately 4.5 million acres of farmland. As a consequence, it was predicted that some areas would take decades to recover.
In Syria, the civil war has wreaked havoc and sorrow on its people for years. Millions of people have been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been dead, and the country is in ruins. The conflicts have left a trail of intense environmental degradation in urban, industrial, and agricultural areas that will last for decades.
The large-scale military bombardment of the land has heavily polluted the soil with biohazardous deposits. And pollutants from these hazardous deposits can be found in both surface and underground water, inadvertently causing problems on the environmental and human sides. When it comes to infrastructure, the destruction of refineries and facilities led to unsustainable coping strategies by armed groups and civilians, who established makeshift refineries, a practice that quickly spread throughout Syria, exposing them and the environment to risks. At its peak in 2015/2016, the number of workers at these sites, along with many children, was presumably in the thousands (Zwijnenburg, 2019).
These instances are merely a fraction of the unfairness the environment has faced in the hands of people who claim to know how to do things better. We have been trusted with the second most precious capital known to man, and entering into a relationship with it has led to a global wildlife population loss of over 70% since 1970 (WWF, 2020).
The wars we started are impoverishing lives and making the environment hostile to biodiversity. On the other side of the world, where there are no frequent violence and wars; industrialisation has put a strain on environmental buoyancy and we see that strain effectuate in less arable soil for crop growth due to losses in organic contents and desertification, polluted and drying up water sources/droughts, anomalies in seasons, etc. By 2035-2040, when the world population would be inching towards 9 billion, if not over, experts are predicting that we would grow 40% less food than what we’re growing now, and that’s not the world we want to live in.
To support that claim, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), an average of 27,000 species of microbes are going extinct per year, mostly due to losses in organic contents that facilitate these microbes, and without microbial activities in the soil, plants are not able to get the necessary nourishment they need.
Acting against these impending problems will be a daunting task, especially when we know that there is a time lag between our actions now and the results we want. Regardless, there is still so much we can do to mitigate and adapt to our changing world. Adaptation to the most pressing sectors while mitigating impacts to reduce the severity.
References
Beck, E. (2016, October 22). LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM. History Crunch. Retrieved from https://www.historycrunch.com/laissez-faire-capitalism.html#/
Fourth International, T. F. (2019, September 15). Capitalism Is Destroying the Planet—Let’s Destroy Capitalism!. Left Voice. https://www.leftvoice.org/capitalism-is-destroying-the-planet-lets-destroy capitalism/#:~:text=Global%20warming%20is%20one%20of,and%20the%20destruction%20of%20biodiversity.
Pettinger, T. (2021, March 29). Environmental impact of economic growth. Economics Help. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/145989/economics/environmental-impact-of-economic-growth/#:~:text=The%20environmental%20impact%20of%20economic,cause%20damage%20to%20the%20environment
UNEP. (2017, August 7). UNEP Study Confirms DR Congo’s Potential as Environmental Powerhouse but Warns of Critical Threats. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/unep-study-confirms-dr-congos-potential-environmental-powerhouse-warns
Zwijnenburg, W. (2019, December 3). In Syria, the Environmental Toll of War Beginning to Emerge. Planetary Security. https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/news/syria-environmental-toll-war-beginning-emerge
Kulyasov I.P. Ecosociology Sources. Series “Ecosociology”. Publishing Solution. 2017. 243 p. il.
Bookchin, Murray (2007). “What is Social Ecology?” (PDF). psichenatura.it.
Bookchin, Murray (2006). Social Ecology and Communalism (PDF). AK Press. ISBN 978-1-904859-49-9.
Lai, O. (2017, August 17). 12 major companies responsible for deforestation. EARTH.ORG. https://earth.org/major-companies-responsible-for-deforestation/