]]
Publications
Griffith University and the Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories, 1997
Tony Hepworth
Charles Sturt University
Australia
The workshop introduces participants to two social paradigms. One is the 'Dominant Western World View' and the other is the 'New Ecological Paradigm'. Initially, participants will examine only the Dominant Western World View and, in doing so, will begin to explore its weaknesses. Two stories involving puppet animals (who know more about the environment than humans do) invite participants to write an opposing set of views to the Dominant Western World View. In doing so they will be engaging in their own critical analysis of the paradigm that has guided western society for over two hundred years. The effects of this paradigm have been felt in other parts of the globe, wherever western capital has been active. This critical analysis will lead to participants writing their own version of a New Ecological Paradigm.
The approach used in this workshop is consistent with the theory of discovery learning. The workshop encourages participants to be critical of one paradigm in such a way that they begin to develop their own, alternative paradigm. Only when they have developed this alternative for themselves, will the actual wording of the New Ecological Paradigm be presented to them for analysis and judgement.
Much of the workshop is based on two stories to be read to the class. The facilitator should rehearse these stories for maximum dramatic effect prior to their presentation. Alternatively, the facilitator could ask a group of participants to rehearse and present each story.
Through this workshop, participants will:
There are four parts to this workshop.
Participants use a worksheet to acknowledge and justify their own positions on four statements with a rating of 1 (True) to 10 (False). Participants use this worksheet to review their positions at different points in the workshop.
This mini-lecture introduces a series of themes which are developed in the workshop.
Two stories based upon the animal puppets, Riika the hippo and Pablo the parrot, are used to encourage participants to reflect on the environmental consequences of the Dominant Western World View.
A debriefing activity allows participants to develop statements about a new ecological world view and to reflect on their degree of commitment to it.
Overhead Transparency Masters
OHT 1: Quotations
OHT 2: Dominant Western World View - New Ecological Paradigm.
Resources
Resource 1: Where Do I Stand?
Resource 2: Riika: The Environmental Refugee
Resource 3: Pablo: The Clever Parrot
Resource 4: Forest News
Reading
Reading 1: Current Thinking on the Environment.
Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1980) A New Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exurberant Society, American Behavioural Scientist , 24, 15-27.
Gersie, A. (1992) Earthtales: Storytelling in Times of Change, Green Print, London.
Livo, N.J. and Rietz, S.A. (1986) Storytelling: Process and Practice, Libraries Unlimited Inc., Colorado.
Milbrath, L.W. (1989) Envisioning a Sustainable Society, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Perlmutter, H.V. and Trist, E. (1986) Paradigms for Societal Transition, Human Relations, 39(1), 1-27.
A. Mini-lecture
Facilitator Reading 1 provides the text of a mini-lecture about current thinking on the environment. It is organised around themes:
- Recent publications and their warnings
- Science and technology versus attitudes
- New ways of looking a the world
- Problems and solutions
Facilitators will be able to develop their own version of this mini-lecture by preparing their own OHTs and offering other examples and relevant audiovisual support.
B. Tasks on the Mini-lecture
- Do you agree with it? Why?
- Do you wish to challenge it? Why?
- Do you need to seek some answers that will help you understand the quotation? Which?
Invite participants to return to the 'Where Do I Stand?' (Resource 1) to review their positions and mark any change, to the left or right, with the ordinal '2nd'.
Explain that the rest of the workshop is based upon two stories and that the animal puppets in these stories take the view that humans are rather silly creatures. Humans, according to these puppets, have a large blind spot when it comes to the environment. They believe we have been so busy producing so that we can consume, that we have not stopped to count the costs. Now, all the costs are beginning to mount, virtually simultaneously, and we say 'Isn't it terrible', but like the old joke about the weather, do nothing about it. The puppets care for their human friends, but that does not mean they do not grow impatient at our uncertainty, nor does it mean they cannot express their anger at what we are doing to their natural homes.
Resource 2 is the text of the first story. As indicated in the introduction, the story should be prepared for presentation to the group as a dramatic reading.
Tasks on Story 1
Story 2 is presented in Resource 3
Present this story in the same dramatic way as the first story.
Tasks on Story 2
Alternatively, use the information in Resource 4 as a basis for group discussion of these points.
A. This activity gives participants the opportunity to develop a set of beliefs for a new ecological paradigm based upon their discussions in the workshop. Resource 1 is used.
B. Review some of the main points from the mini-lecture. Ask the group, for the moment, to presume that Brown and the Bruntland report 'got it right'. Discuss the following:
- Where, on the continua, should society place itself?
- What are the implications for the future of holding such a position?
C. Invite participants to individually locate themselves on the continua and to consider what the implications are for their future of holding such a position.
D. Review the changes in points of view participants have experienced on the various continua in Resource 1 during the workshop.
To keep options open for future generations, the present generation must begin now, and begin together, nationally and internationally.
Some damage is clearly inevitable. Some depredation is tolerable.
Past human actions have left contemporary societies with an almost insuperable set of problems to solve.
The solution lies in our attitudes towards the earth and how these attitudes direct our actions.
In short nature was devalued. This was our generation's hidden curriculum.
'Everything', the environmentalists tell us, 'must go somewhere'.
The answer that is being heard, albeit in something of a whisper, is 'We all do'.
A world in which countries go their own way may not be worth living in.
Humans are part of the web of nature, with no part being any more or less important than any other part.
While the solutions are simple, they are not easy.
We are closing down the major life systems of this planet.
|
People are fundamentally different from all other creatures on earth, over which they have dominion. |
While humans have exceptional characteristics (culture, technology, etc), they remain one among many species that are interdependently involved in the global ecosystem. |
1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10
|
People are masters of their destiny; they can choose their goals and learn to do whatever is necessary to achieve them. |
Human affairs are influenced not only by social and cultural factors, but also by intricate linkages of cause and effect feedback in the web of nature; thus human actions may have unintended consequences. |
1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10
|
The world is vast and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans. |
Humans live in and are dependent upon a finite biophysical environment which imposes potent physical and biological restraints on human affairs |
1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10
|
The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution and thus progress need never cease. |
Although the inventiveness of humans and their powers derived therefrom may seem to continually extend our limits, ecological laws cannot be ignored, nor will they go away. |
1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10
.
People are fundamentally different from all other creatures on earth, over which they have dominion
True 1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10 False
People are masters of their destiny; they can choose their goals and learn to do whatever is necessary to achieve them.
True 1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10 False
The world is vast and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans.
True 1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10 False
The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution and thus progress need never cease.
True 1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9...........10 False
It was quite accidental really, but just as Stephanie Jones was walking by the table she happened to glance down at the newspaper. It was open at the Wanted page and her eyes fastened on a particular advertisement.
Wanted: Friendly homes for friendly hippos
Apply: HERM, 39th Waterhole, Malagarisi River, Tanzania.
Stephanie knew it had to be a joke, but she thought she would send a letter anyway ... just for the fun of it ... to the 39th Waterhole ... to see what might happen ... who knows?
That night at tea time she asked her parents if she could have a hippo from Africa for a pet. Her father said, 'Of course, but you will have to arrange to get the hippo all the way from Africa to our front doorstep', and winked at Stephanie's mother. Stephanie's mother just smiled.
That night as Stephanie sat at her desk writing the letter to the 39th waterhole her father poked his head around the door and asked 'Homework?'
She replied 'No, I'm writing to Africa for my hippo.'
'Get me one too.'
'Daddy, don't you think two hippos will be too many!'
'Yes, you are probably right,' he said, and walked off. A minute later Stephanie could hear her parents laughing, and she felt a little stupid. 'But,' she thought, 'who knows?' and then, 'I can't believe I'm doing this.' But she finished the letter all the same. Then she added:
P.S. My parents say its OK.
P.P.S. Please send a hippo who speaks English.
The next morning Stephanie walked to the post office to airmail the letter. As she paid for her stamp she made sure the postal officer could not see the address on the envelope. She had to admit that she felt a little silly but she posted the letter, because Stephanie listened to a small voice inside her that whispered, 'Take a chance.'
One week went by and Stephanie thought, 'Wasn't I stupid sending that letter.' Two weeks went by and Stephanie thought, 'Wasn't I really stupid sending that letter.' Three weeks went by and Stephanie knew just how stupendously stupid she had been. Four weeks went by and her father asked in his 'Ha. Ha. Ha.' voice, 'When is that hippo coming Steph?' Stephanie pulled a face but before she could answer the doorbell rang.
They heard Mrs Jones go to the door, heard it open, heard a warm, friendly voice say, 'Hullo, my name is Riika, I speak English', and then there was a silence. A voice inside Stephanie shouted, 'See! I told you to take a chance didn't I!' She beamed at her father, 'The hippo is at the front doorstep now Daddy.' Her father looked a little confused.
A few seconds later when a pale-faced Mrs Jones walked into the lounge room followed by a hippopotamus, he looked very confused. Stephanie walked straight up to Riika, gave her a hug and said, 'I'm Stephanie, I wrote the letter to the 39th waterhole.'
'Its nice to meet you,' said Riika.
'The hippo can't possibly stay,' said Mr Jones in a weak voice.
'But you invited me,' said Riika, politely but firmly.
'We didn't mean it,' said Mrs Jones, still looking very pale.
'I have your letter inviting me,' said Riika quietly.
'You will have to go back,' said Mr Jones in a voice he didn't recognise.
'They only gave me a one way ticket,' said Riika.
'We'll get you a return ticket,' said Mrs Jones, near to panic.
'Who are 'they'?' asked Mr Jones. This time he thought he spoke in something like his own voice.
'HERM,' answered Riika'.
Neither Mr nor Mrs Jones knew what Riika was talking about and she knew she had to explain things. 'HERM' is the Hippo Environmental Refugee Movement, and while it is very nice of you to offer to buy me a return ticket, it just wouldn't help. I'm an environmental refugee. I can't go back.'
'Huh?' said Stephanie's parents.
Riika went on. 'I'm running away from an environment that has been changed so much that it has been destroyed for hippos. Hippos can no longer live at the 39th waterhole in the same way that people can no longer live at Chernobyl.'
'That's silly,' said Mr Jones, 'you don't live at Chernobyl.'
Riika sighed, and wondered why humans never seemed to understand. 'Some of them,' she thought, 'are as thick as the pollution they create.' 'Let me explain a little more,' she said. 'Everything at the 39th waterhole, and in many other waterholes, has changed. I'm running away from an environment that has been changed so much that it has been destroyed for hippos. We can't live there any more and we have to leave, just like the people who have had to leave Chernobyl. Nothing is the same in our home, everything has changed, for we have experienced 'progress'.'
Riika paused for a breath and then continued. 'Bush tracks have given way to roads and highways. Villages have been dammed. Forests have been cleared and the land ploughed and planted and sprayed. Our home, which was once big and beautiful and clean is now small and ugly and yukky. The air smells of factory smoke and diesel fumes, the soil grows crops like coffee which we can't eat and the water tastes of chemicals. The fish no longer swim, the butterflies no longer drink the flowers' nectar, the birds no longer sing. We had to move.'
'We are very sorry for all that,' said Mr Jones, 'but you can't blame us, and you can't stay here.'
'Someone has to accept the blame,' said Riika. 'Tell me, do you drink coffee from Tanzania?' asked Riika.
'Sometimes,' said Mrs Jones.
'Do you eat cashew nuts from my country?'
'We had some last Christmas. They were delicious,' said Mr Jones.
'Is your shirt made from cotton from my country.'
'I think it is,' said Mr Jones.
'Then maybe you are to blame,' said Riika. She went on. 'Does your country send tractors and ploughs to Africa? Does it send trucks and graders?' There was a hint of anger in Riika's voice.
'Its hard to know. I suppose so. Maybe.'
'Then maybe all of you helped destroy my home.'
'Maybe we did,' said Stephanie, who seemed to understand much better than her parents.
'But Riika,' argued Mrs Jones, 'when we do all those things, we do help the people of Tanzania.'
'You do help the people,' said Riika, 'but you don't help the animals. Humans are only one of the species that live on this planet, but because you don't think about us, I'm an environmental refugee.'
'Then maybe you had better stay with us after all,' said Mr and Mrs Jones. 'At least until we can find out what to do with you,' Mr. Jones added under his breath.
'Thank you, Mum, thank you, Dad,' said Stephanie. 'Riika can come upstairs and live with all my puppets.'
Mr Jones looked hard at Stephanie, 'What is wrong with the shed?' he wanted to know.
Mrs Jones said, 'Shoosh. Don't be silly.'
That night the friendly hippo, who could speak English, slept in Stephanie's room. Riika actually slept at the head of the bed and Stephanie used her as a pillow. And in the darkened room, you couldn't tell Riika from all the other puppets Stephanie had collected over the years. As she drifted off to sleep Stephanie murmured, 'I have a hippo for a pet ... no, for a friend ... and a hippo for a pillow. Riika is my hippo-pillow.'
* The human characters in this story, Stephanie, Mr Jones and Mrs Jones, give it a western flavour that may not be appropriate in a non-western country. Facilitators should feel free to alter those names to give the story more of a local flavour.
Once, not that long ago, the world had large forests with lots of trees. But then things began to change. Steel axes took the place of stone axes and more trees were cut down than ever before. Then a German man called Stihl invented the chainsaw. The chainsaw was a wonderful invention if you were a logger. If you were a forest, the invention of the chainsaw was a disaster.
Some countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands needed to buy goods from overseas to help their people. They bought food, medicine, machinery, computers, oil, weapons and trucks. To help pay for these goods they cut down their forests and sold the trees.
And nobody worried too much. The trees they cut were being used for their needs.
But as more and more trees were cut, and the large forests began to shrink, some people did begin to worry. These people pointed out how important trees were to us. To start with, many trees are beautiful. Some are two or three hundred years old - quite old monuments really. Trees are also wonderful to play in, to picnic beside and to just lie under and dream.
More importantly, trees hold down the soil and stop it from being blown away by wind or washed away by rain. They also provide food, homes and resting places for many animals.
Most importantly, the trees give us the oxygen that we breathe. Without trees, we could not breathe.
Stephanie Jones learnt all this at school. She also learnt that every year more and more trees were being cut down, because more and more people needed food, medicine, machinery, computers, oil, weapons, trucks, houses and paper. And Stephanie began to worry.
In newspapers and on TV there was more news than ever before about the destruction of forests. In classes all over the world teachers started teaching about the environment. Governments started to say how worried they were, but nobody did anything. They all just talked.
One night Stephanie had a nightmare. She dreamed that the world had cut so many trees down that there was a shortage of oxygen.
In the shops people queued to buy tins of fresh air.
Some carried their own supply of fresh air about with them, no matter where they went.
Because there was less oxygen for us to breathe, runners didn't want to race any more ... footballers refused to chase the ball ... swimmers had only floating competitions ... and children stopped running at parties and enjoying themselves. Instead they sat still and got bored.
The governments of the world got worried. Life wasn't very exciting any more. As people didn't exercise, but still ate the same amount of food - everybody got fat. While the tennis courts and football fields and running tracks were empty - the hospitals were very full.
As more and more trees were cut down, more and more terrible things happened.
The soil was washed away by rain and blown away by the wind ... and farmers found it hard to grow food.
Some dust storms choked people ... and made breathing very difficult.
Some muddy river waters choked coral reefs ... and tourists couldn't see anything while fisherman couldn't catch anything but dead fish.
And because trees can stop floods, and there were less trees, there were more floods ... and people drowned and homes got washed away.
Everybody, including the animals suffered. The world became full of environmental refugees.
Stephanie as usual was sleeping on Riika, her hippo-pillow, and her nightmare was so bad that her moaning and turning woke Riika. In fact it woke all the puppets in Stephanie's room and they began to complain. (Most puppets are like humans - they hate being woken in the middle of the night.)
'Stephanie,' said Riika in her gentle voice, 'wake up and tell me what the problem is.' But while Riika was gentle some of the puppets gave Stephanie a bad time. They told her to 'Be quiet!' and to 'Shut up' and said other things that puppets really should not say. Only the wombat, the owl and the possum, being night time animals, were enjoying themselves.
Stephanie did her best to quiet them and told Riika about her dream. When she had finished, Pablo, a puppet rainforest parrot, asked in an I-know-something-that-you-don't-know voice, 'Why are those terrible things happening Stephanie?'
'Because the people are cutting down the trees,' said Stephanie. 'Didn't I explain that?' Stephanie asked herself.
'But,' said this cheeky parrot, 'Why?'
'Because they need to sell the trees to make money,' said Stephanie. 'I know I explained that,' Stephanie murmured to herself, 'I wish Pablo had listened.'
'But,' said this rude parrot, 'Why?'
'Because they need the money to pay for all the food, medicine, machinery, computers, oil, weapons, trucks, houses and paper that they need,' it was told, a little impatiently. Then Stephanie added, 'Didn't you hear anything I said?' Stephanie was beginning to think that this was one puppet that could be sent to the back of the cupboard for a week.
'But,' said this impertinent parrot, 'Why?'
'Because they have no other way to get their money to pay for these things,' Pablo was told very impatiently.
'Yes they have,' said the puppet parrot, in a quiet, but knowing way. 'Oh, yes they have.' Stephanie just hated the tone of voice that Pablo was using.
'You don't even go to school,' shouted Stephanie, 'so how would you know!' and began to think maybe two weeks in the back of the cupboard was a good idea. But Pablo did know. Stephanie was forgetting that parrots are experts on trees. They spend all their lives in trees, but more than that, they do get a bird's eye view of the role that trees play in the environment.
'All they have to do,' said the puppet parrot with a smile on his face, 'is to pay the people to not cut down the trees and to pay them to plant more trees. So instead of buying timber, you would really be buying oxygen, soil, coral reefs and lives.' And Pablo thought to himself, 'Why are humans so silly?'
The next day Stephanie told the teacher what Pablo had said. The teacher was impressed and told the principal. The principal became excited and told the government. The government faxed the idea to the United Nations and the United Nations went to work.
The bulldozers stopped and birds made nests in them. The chainsaws stopped and got covered by cobwebs. The timber cutters were all given shovels and young trees to plant. The soil no longer blew away or got washed away, and coral reefs grew again. There were less floods and so lives were saved.
And the United Nations were so impressed with the parrot's idea, that ever since Pablo has had a special seat on the Environmental Council of the United Nations.
* The human characters in this story, Stephanie, Mr Jones and Mrs Jones, give it a western flavour that may not be appropriate in a non-western country. Facilitators should feel free to alter those names to give the story more of a local flavour.
A Source of Much Life
Tropical forests cover only 7 per cent of the world's land area but contain between 50 to 90 percent of all our plant and animal species. The reason the figure is so vague, i.e. 50-90, is that so far we have not been able to spend as long as is needed in studying forests.
Homes for Tribal People
Many hundreds of thousands of tribal people live in rainforests. The forest homes provide food and shelter, and if the forest goes then the whole lifestyle of these people also disappears.
Foods
Tropical forests provide a wonderful variety of foods for the world. Many of these foods are favourites of ours. Bananas, mangoes, pineapples, tea, rice, coffee, corn, peanuts, brazil nuts, cashews and oranges all were first found growing in the tropical forests.
Wild Plants
Many rainforests plants have been taken from the forests and are now found on farms and plantations, e.g. rice, pineapples, bananas, tea. However, sometimes these crops are attacked by diseases and pests. When this happens biologists have to go back to the forests to find wild varieties that may be able to resist these diseases and pests.
Medicines
Tribal people living in forests have what we call 'bush medicine'. These medicines are leaves, seeds, flowers, oils and so on that cure illness, provide poisons for arrows and spears and even drugs to get high on. Many of our modern medicines come from these 'bush medicines'. Over 2000 rainforest plants contain anti-cancer properties.
A Cooler Earth
Carbon dioxide is one of the well known 'greenhouse gases' that is heating up our earth. As trees grow they are able to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and use the carbon for their own growth. The more trees then, the less carbon dioxide and the cooler the earth.
In 1987 an area about the size of Austria - 8,000,000 hectares was cut, allowed to dry and then burned in the Amazon rainforest. It was cleared for two reasons. Firstly, so that the local people could have small plots of land to farm. Secondly, so large cattle ranches could be started to provide beef to the hamburger market in North America.
When one hectare of land is under tropical forest it supports about 800,000 kilograms of plants and animals. When it is covered with grass and given over to beef cattle it produces about 200 kilograms of meat per year. This is enough meat to make 1,600 hamburgers.
Tropical forests across the world are being destroyed at a rate of 20,000,000 hectares per year. This is an area roughly equal in size to two football fields of forest being cut down every minute.
Recent Publications and Their Warnings
Recent key publications on our environment have pointed to the need for change in our lifestyles. Lester Brown (1989) in an article in Habitat Australia argued:
Unless the threat of climate change, ozone depletion, soil erosion, deforestation and population growth are bought under control soon, economic decline is inevitable.
Time is not on our side ... We have years, not decades to turn the situation around. There is no guarantee that we will be able to reverse the trends ... but if we do it will be during the nineties. Beyond that will be too late.
The Brundtland Commission began Our Common Future with:
Over the course of this century, the relationship between the human world and the planet that sustains it has undergone a profound change. When the century began, neither human numbers nor technology had the power to radically alter planetary systems. As the century closes, not only do vastly increased human numbers and their activities have that power, but major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in waters, among plants and animals, and in the relationships among all of these. The rate of change is outstripping the ability of scientific disciplines and our current capabilities to assess and advise. It is frustrating the attempts of political and economic institutions, which evolved in a different, more fragmented world, to adapt and cope. It deeply worries many people who are seeking ways to place those concerns on the political agendas. We have been careful to base our recommendations on the realities of present institutions, on what can and must be accomplished today. But to keep options open for future generations, the present generation must begin now, and begin together, nationally and internationally. (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
In A Green History of the World Clive Ponting (1991) is not quite so alarmist. He concludes:
The problem of all human societies has been to find a means of extracting from the environment their food, clothing, shelter and other goods in a way that does not render it incapable of supporting them. Some damage is clearly inevitable. Some depredation is tolerable. . In this wider perspective it is clearly far too soon to judge whether modern industrialised societies, with their very high rates of energy and resource consumption and high pollution levels, and the rapidly rising population in the rest of the world are ecologically sustainable.
However, Ponting's final sentence indicates that despite his measured objectivity, he is after all, alarmed:
Past human actions have left contemporary societies with an almost insuperable set of problems to solve.
Whether we adopt Brown's ten years or the Brundtland Commission's plea to 'begin now', or Ponting's more measured response, the fact remains that we face major problems and that it would be unwise to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. If the children we are teaching today, do not become part of the solutions that are needed, then by the time they are thirty, they may rightly, have lost faith in our generation, the one that nurtured and educated them.
Science and Technology versus Attitudes
We have, at our scientific and technological fingertips, the ability to make significant changes to our environment. But it is wrong to presume that the solution to environmental problems lies in our science and technology. The solution lies in our attitudes towards the earth and how these attitudes direct our actions.
Sean McDonagh (1986) makes a convincing point when he claims that 'the more sophisticated technology becomes, the more it tends to place humans outside the community of the natural world, so that we feel no real affinity for the Earth.'
In the last 200 or so years of our history the influence of such great minds as Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon and Issac Newton has shaped our thinking. We grew up in a society which 'knew' that nature could be quantified by mathematics (Descartes), that the scientific method would unlock, with unerring accuracy, all of nature's mysteries (Bacon) and that humankind was at the top of the pyramid of life (Newton). The earth was ours to command, and our science and technology would help us do just that. The beauty and wonder of nature was to be objectified and demystified. In short nature was devalued. This was our generation's hidden curriculum.
We believe now that these assumptions that guided our thinking, all too often quite unconsciously, are highly problematic. A new view of the world is developing and it is this view that will guide our thinking over the next few decades.
New Ways of Looking at the World
Firstly, it is now accepted that we live in a closed system and that when we do something to the earth at Point A and Time X its effects will be felt at Point B and Time Y. 'Everything,' the environmentalists tell us, 'must go somewhere.' An excellent but distressing illustration of this truth is the fact that in the 1960s DDT in sprays used for killing insects, especially mosquitos, eventually worked its way through the food chain and finished up in the milk of nursing mothers and was fed to the newborn.
More recently the Australian findings against Agent Orange used in Vietnam and the fallout in Europe from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in the Soviet Union have provided further proof of this statement.
The acid rain in Venice that originates in the nations to the northwest of Italy, the pollution in the harbour of Rotterdam that is brought by the Rhine River as it flows through the countries to the east of Holland, and the salt problem in Australia's Murray River as it flows through farmlands and is joined by the Murrumbidgee, the Darling and a host of smaller rivers, further illustrate that 'Everything must go somewhere'. They also illustrate another favourite saying of environmentalists, 'There is no such thing as a free lunch' - sooner or later, someone, somewhere, has to pay for our actions at Point A and Time X.
Secondly, we are becoming aware that pollutants, e.g. oil slicks, pesticides, acid raid, radioactive air, do not carry passports and do not respect national boundaries. Questions are being asked in terms of who owns the seas? the rivers? the air? that carry these pollutants. The answer that is being heard, albeit in something of a whisper, is 'We all do'. In the same way, as the cutting down of forests continues some are asking 'Who owns the forests?' and the answer is the same, 'We all do.' This is why Our Common Future argues that we must 'begin together, nationally and internationally'.
Lester Brown (1989) makes reference to 'the global commons' while Our Common Future (1987) uses the term 'the international commons'. Such expressions herald a new way of perceiving the political divisions of the world. Nation states still exist, but the rivers that flow through them, the forests that straddle their boundaries, the seas that wash their shores and the air that flows over them
belong, we are told by the whisper, not to those nation states but to all of us - irrespective of who we are and where we live on the earth. And irrespective of whether we are among the living or the greatest silent majority of all, the yet unborn.
Thirdly, there is a growing acknowledgment that we shall have to strike what Kenneth Piddington (1989) calls a 'global bargain'. For Piddington, nations would have to negotiate their responsibilities for the environment, each nation having due regard for the needs of its own people as well as for the needs of all the people of the globe. As there are 160 odd sovereign nations on our globe it is clear that arriving at a global bargain will be a long, hard road. However, we can no longer afford the luxury of letting nation states be totally independent in their actions. Lester Brown (1989) makes a telling point when he suggests 'a world in which countries go their own way may not be worth living in'.
One major factor that will make a global bargain difficult to arrive at is the vast differences in wealth and standards of living that separate nations. In the US for example, there are 1.8 persons per motor car. In Oceania there are 2.8 persons per car. In China there are 1,374 persons per motor car. While it would be damaging to the environment if 1.2 billion Chinese had the same ratio of people to motor cars that the US has reached, it would be inappropriate for us in the developed world to advise the Chinese to halt their economic growth before they came anywhere near our level. Such advice would only be seen as unwelcome.
The island nation of Madagascar has a unique set of biological treasures in its forests. But Madagascar is a poor country and suffers from the pressures of a growing population. As a consequence these biological treasures are being cleared so that more farmland is available for the people. One special plant found in the forests of Madagascar, the rosy periwinkle, holds promise for finding a cure for some forms of leukemia. Yet the rosy periwinkle is being cleared along with the forest. What kind of global bargain could we strike with Madagascar?
The Global 2000 Report to the President (1982) claims that by the year 2000 we will have forced 500,000 plants and animals to extinction. Thomas Berry (1988) in The Dream of the Earth claims the figure will be between 500,000 and 1,000,000. One can only wonder how many of these plants and animals might be like the rosy periwinkle and have properties that we desperately need.
Clearly, a global bargain is necessary. It will not be arrived at easily, but negotiations, however difficult they may prove to be, must begin.
Finally, as the idea that humans are above nature is slowly eroded, it is being replaced by the idea that humans are part of the web of nature, with no part being any more or less important than any other part.
We humans have been so busy searching out the secrets of nature, that we have lost our sense of place in the scheme of things. Because we have been able to develop industry, harness nuclear energy, build great cities and tame rivers, we have seen ourselves top of the pyramid. It is only when we count the costs of acid rain, nuclear fallout, polluted beaches and salination of our rivers and farmlands that we are forced to acknowledge that nature charges some high costs for our immature tinkering. We are slowly coming to realise that the metaphor of a pyramid is the wrong metaphor. The right metaphor is that of a web.
As well as the wrong metaphor, Thomas Berry (1988) would also claim that we have the wrong dream. We have dreamed of domesticating the planet. We should have dreamed of trying to understand our planet and becoming a part of it, rather than apart from it. Certainly, the writing of James Lovelock (1988) in The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth presents a strong argument that we have simply not done enough to understand how Earth functions. We have been so busy exploring the parts of our home that we have missed the bigger picture that is right under our noses - Gaia, or Earth, is a whole and can only be understood as such. We are, according to Lovelock, just another species - neither here nor there in the 4 billion year long history of Gaia - and neither the owners nor the stewards of this planet.
Problems and Solutions
This rationale began with claims by Lester Brown and the Bruntland Commission that we have only a little time left, measured in a decade or two, to institute significant changes to our lifestyle. By 'our lifestyle' they really mean those few nations that are highly industrialised, hold only 25% of the world's population but control 70-80% of the world's resources. Clive Ponting (1991) added a more moderate argument to these claims, but still expresses concern about an 'almost insuperably difficult set of problems to solve'.
To the problems we face, there are solutions. That much is clear. However, while the solutions are simple, they are not easy. We could stop acid rain if we changed, dramatically, our approach to industry. We could eliminate the risk of another Chernobyl by closing down the hundreds of nuclear reactors around the globe. We could minimise the greenhouse effect by banning CFCs immediately and shifting people from private cars to public transport. But these solutions would have significant effects on our standards of living. Our problems are deep seated and the solutions not easy to apply. They may well be 'insuperable'.
Our problems are caused by our demands - we want more energy, more buildings, more crops, more cars, more clothes, and so on. But more than that, we want the latest cars, fashionable clothes, modern buildings. We want more money spent on transport, defence, the police, education, health ... and above all, we want full employment. In short, we are living in a society that is addicted to consumption, and while there is no doubt that it is a comfortable lifestyle and that we vote for politicians who promise to deliver it to us, it does come with high costs. Thomas Berry (1988) argues:
We are acting on a geological and biological order of magnitude. We are changing the chemistry of the planet. We are altering the great hydrological cycles. We are weakening the ozone layer that shields us from cosmic rays. We are saturating the air, the water, and the soil with toxic substances so that we can never bring them back to their original purity. We are upsetting the entire earth system that has, over some billions of years and through an endless sequence of experiments, produced such a magnificent array of living forms, forms capable of seasonal self-renewal over an indefinite period of time.
He concludes that 'we are closing down the major life systems of this planet'. We can only hope that Berry is wrong, but we should act as if he is right.
References
Berry, T. (1988) The Dream of the Earth, Sierra Club, San Francisco.
Brown, L.R. (1989) Our World at Risk, Habitat Australia, October.
Brown, L.R. et al. (1989) State of the World 1989, S & W Information Guides, Melbourne.
Lovelock, J. (1988) The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of our Living Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McDonagh, S. (1986) To Care for the Earth, Claretian Publications, Quezon City.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Piddington, K.W. (1989) Sovereignty and the Environment, Environment,31(7).
Ponting, C. ( 1991) A Green History of the World, Penguin Books, London.
The Global 2000 Report to the President (1982) in Falk, R., Kim, S.S. and Mendlovitz, S.H. (eds.) Just World Order, Vol. 1, Westview Press, Boulder.
TSW Home
Module 1 | Module 2 | Module 3 | Module 4 | Module 5
Module 6 | Module 7 | Module 8 | Module 9 | Module 10
Module 11 | Module 12 | Module 13 | Module 14 | Module 15
Module 16 | Module 17 | Module 18 | Module 19 | Module 20
Module 21 | Module 22 | Module 23 | Module 24 | Module 25 | Module 26
