The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Wrong Questions Yield Wrong Solutions
A few months ago, someone asked me and some other activist friends, “If our world is really looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe, how do I live my life right now?”
The question stuck with me for a few reasons. The first is that it’s the world, not our world. The notion that the world belongs to us—instead of us belonging to the world—is a good part of the problem. The second is that this is pretty much the question that’s asked more or less constantly in mainstream sources (and even among some environmentalists) about the state of the world and our response to it. The phrase “green living” brings up 7,250,000 Google hits, or more than Mick Jagger and Keith Richards combined (or, to look at it another way, more than a thousand times more than the crucial environmental philosophers John A. Livingston and Neil Evernden combined). If you click on websites that come up under the “green living” search, you find just what you’d expect, stuff like “The Green Guide: Shop, Save, Conserve,” “Personal Solutions for All of Us,” and “Tissue Paper Guide for Consumers. Help save forests by choosing environmentally preferable alternatives.”
The third and most important reason the question stuck with me is that it’s precisely the wrong question.
By looking at how it’s the wrong question, we can start looking for some of the right questions. This is crucial because coming up with right answers to wrong questions isn’t particularly helpful.
So, part of the problem is that talking about “looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe” makes it seem as though environmental catastrophe is the problem. But it’s not. It’s a symptom: an effect, not a cause. To make this clear, let’s think about global warming, and attempts to “solve” or “stop” or “mitigate” global warming. But global warming (or global climate catastrophe, as some rightly call it), as terrifying as it is, isn’t a primary threat. It’s a consequence. I’m not saying pikas aren’t going extinct, or the Arctic ice cap isn’t melting, or weather patterns aren’t changing, but to blame global warming for those disasters is like blaming the lead projectile for the death of someone who got shot, or blaming the final opportunistic infection for the death of an immune-suppressed victim. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t work to solve, stop, or mitigate global climate catastrophe: I’m merely saying we’ll have a better chance of doing so if we recognize it as a predictable (at this point) result of burning oil and gas, of deforestation, of dam construction, of industrial agriculture, and so on. The threat is all of these, and a consequence is global climate catastrophe.
The same is true on the larger scale of worldwide ecological collapse. Extractive forestry destroys forests. What’s the surprise when extractive forestry causes forest communities to collapse? We’ve seen it once or twice before. When you think of Iraq, is the first image that comes to mind cedar forests so thick the sunlight never reaches the ground? That’s how it was prior to the beginnings of this extractive culture: one of the first written myths of this culture is Gilgamesh deforesting the plains and hillsides of Iraq to build cities. The Near East, too, was heavily forested. Those were cut. Greece was heavily forested: Plato complained that deforestation harmed water quality (and I’m sure Athenian Water Quality Boards said the same as those boards say today: we need to study the question more to make sure there’s really a correlation). North Africa was heavily forested (those were cut for the Phoenician and Egyptian navies). And so on. It’s magical thinking to believe—especially after having seen these collapses so many times—a culture can effectively deforest and yet expect forest communities to sustain. It’s the same with rivers. There are two million dams just in the United States, with 70,000 dams over six feet tall and 60,000 dams over 13 feet tall. And we wonder at the collapse of native fish communities? We can repeat this exercise for grasslands, even more hammered by agriculture than forests are by forestry; for oceans, where plastic outweighs phytoplankton ten to one (for forests to be equivalently plasticized, they’d be covered in styrofoam ninety feet deep); for migratory songbirds, plagued by everything from pesticides to skyscrapers; and so on.
The point is that worldwide ecological collapse is not some external and unpredictable threat—or gunbarrel—down which we face. That’s not to say we aren’t staring down the barrel of a gun. It would just be nice if we chose the right one.
A second part of the problem is that the question presumes we’re facing a future threat—in effect, that the gun has yet to go off. But the Dreadful has already begun. Ask passenger pigeons. Ask Eskimo curlews. Ask great auks. Ask traditional indigenous peoples forced off their land. This is not a potential threat, but rather one that long-since commenced.
The larger problem with the metaphor, and the reason for this essay, is the question at the end: “how shall I live my life right now?” Let’s take this step by step. We’ve figured out what the gun is: this entire extractive culture that has been deforesting, defishing, dewatering, de-soiling, despoiling, destroying since its beginnings. We know this gun has been fired before, and has killed many of those we love, from Chestnut Ermine Moths to Carolina Parakeets. It’s now aimed (and firing) at even more of those we love, from Siberian Tigers to Indian Gavials to entire oceans to, in fact, the entire world, which includes you and me. If we make this metaphor real, we might understand why the question—asked more often almost than any other—is so wrong. If someone were rampaging through your home, killing those you love one by one (and, for that matter, en masse) would the question burning a hole in your heart be: how should I live my life right now? I can’t speak for you, but the question I’d be asking is this: how do I disarm or kill these psychopaths? How do I stop them using any means necessary?
Finally we get to the point. Those who come after, who inherit whatever’s left of the world once this culture has been stopped—whether through peak oil, economic collapse, ecological collapse, or the efforts of brave women and men fighting in alliance with the natural world—are going to judge us by the health of the land base, because that’s what’s going to support them, or not. They’re not going to care how you or I lived our lives. They’re not going to care how hard we tried. They're not going to care whether we were nice people. They're not going to care whether we were nonviolent or violent. They're not going to care whether we grieved the murder of the planet. They're not going to care whether we were enlightened or not enlightened. They're not going to care what sort of excuses we had to not act (e.g., “I’m too stressed to think about it,” or, “It’s too big and scary,” or “I’m too busy,” or “But those in power will kill us if we effectively act against them,” or “If we fight back we run the risk of becoming like they are,” or “But I recycled,” or any of a thousand other excuses we’ve all heard too many times). They’re not going to care how simply we lived. They’re not going to care how pure we were in thought or action. They’re not going to care if we became the change we wished to see. They’re not going to care whether we voted Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or not at all. They’re not going to care if we wrote really big books about it. They’re not going to care whether we had “compassion” for the CEOs and politicians running this deathly economy. They’re going to care whether they can breathe the air and drink the water. They’re going to care whether the land can support them. We can fantasize all we want about some great turning, and if the people (including the nonhuman people) can’t breathe, it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters but that we stop this culture from killing the planet.
It’s embarrassing even to have to say this. The land is the source of everything. If you have no planet, you have no economic system, you have no spirituality, you can’t even ask this question. If you have no planet, nobody can ask any questions.
What question would I ask instead? How’s this? How can we deprive the rich of their capacity to steal from the poor, and deprive the powerful of their capacity to murder the planet?
Or this: How can we get over our own precious selves, and actually work to protect the land where we live? One of the good things about everything being so messed up is that no matter where we look there’s good work to be done. We need it all. We need people to take out dams, and we need people to knock out electrical infrastructures. We need people to protest and to chain themselves to trees. We also need people working to ensure that as many people as possible are equipped to deal with the fall-out as the collapse continues. We need people working to teach others what wild plants to eat, what plants are natural antibiotics. We need people teaching others how to purify water, how to build shelters. All of this can look like supporting traditional, local knowledge, it can look like starting neighborhood gardens, it can look like planting local varieties of medicinal herbs, and it can look like teaching people how to sing.
I want people to work to stop the destruction. No! That’s not true. I don't want people to work to stop the destruction. I want them to stop it. There's all the difference in the world between those statements. Failure is not an option. I think often about a line by Soren Kierkegaard: "Twaddle, rubbish, and gossip is what people want, not action...The secret of life is to chatter freely about all one wishes to do and how one is always being prevented—and then do nothing." Well, the time is long past for that.
Or how if people do not ask themselves, “How shall I live my life?” but rather they ask the land where they live, the land who supports them, “What can and must I do to become your ally, to help protect you from this culture? What can we do together to stop this culture from killing you?” If you ask that question, and you listen, the land will tell you what it needs. And then the only real question is: Are you willing to do it?
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Whitney E. Akers
- "The Game Changers" is a new documentary on Netflix that posits a vegan diet can improve athletic performance in professional athletes.
- Limited studies available show that the type of diet — plant-based or omnivorous — doesn't give you an athletic advantage.
- We talked to experts about what diet is the best for athletic performance.
Packed with record-setting athletes displaying cut physiques and explosive power, "The Game Changers," a new documentary on Netflix, has a clear message: Vegan is best.
By John R. Platt
When it comes to solving problems related to wildlife trade, there are an awful lot of "sticky widgets."
By Bijal Trivedi
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on Nov. 13 that describes a list of microorganisms that have become resistant to antibiotics and pose a serious threat to public health. Each year these so-called superbugs cause more than 2.8 million infections in the U.S. and kill more than 35,000 people.