'We Can't Handle the Truth': finite resources, infinite appetites
by Jerry Silberman
EXCERPT //
As floods consume formerly idyllic German river towns, as creeping seawater continues to salinize the farmlands of India, and as dangerous temperatures and colossal fires rage in the Pacific Northwest, the International Panel on Climate Change has issued yet another dire warning, this time, in 2021, with ever more consensus. It is widely agreed that human activity is causing detrimental changes to the planet and the life support systems humans depend on, and that the consequences could continue to be ever more severe.
And yet. Why is it so hard for us to handle the truth?
The prime economic and political strategy of every economically significant country on our finite world—regardless of economic and political system—is to grow their economy and provide a higher standard of living and consumption to their citizens. As Covid wanes, getting back to pre-Covid normal is the universal goal of governments, and consumption on the part of those who were forced to defer spending is skyrocketing.
We find ourselves in a psychological bind: We want our economies to grow infinitely on a finite planet, even when we’re causing death and destruction to ourselves and future generations via that growth. On every level of society in the industrial world, we go through increasingly complex and dangerous gymnastics to pretend that ramped up growth does not also ramp up the trajectory of our demise, and that we aren’t flouting the most basic laws of physics.
For reasons that seem obvious to me, this repudiation is rarely, if ever, verbalized by political leaders, corporate executives, or the scientists they support. The dilemma of infinite growth on a finite planet was first seriously raised in the scientific community in the 1970s. However, every time the downsides of environmental destruction, global warming, or the fragility of our society show up, our political and intellectual leadership take one of two paths. Some have denied the issue outright, and others promise to fix the problem with new technology. Both claim that we can continue growing without limit; the net result is the same. The narrative of perpetual growth is reinforced, and the day of reckoning comes closer.
No administration since Jimmy Carter's has seriously proposed that we consider the implications of our behavior or change our patterns of energy use. Each in its own nuance has told us we could have our cake and eat it too. The only blips in the growth of energy consumption and the release of greenhouse gases and other toxins have been as a result of economic downturns, and “green initiatives” always take a back seat when the economy is in recovery mode, as it is now. Covid, particularly as a result of the collapse of air travel, gave us the cleanest air in a long time. It will not last.
The much more interesting and challenging question is: Why is it so hard for us to face the consequences of our economic goals? What drives us so hard into this denial? Our own biology and psychology are mostly to blame. E.O. Wilson, in a debate at Harvard University, referenced the collision between our instinctive and/or imprinted behaviors, which were adaptive in their evolution to our living and the latter-day accomplishments of our cognitive and analytic abilities. Simply put, he said "We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.”
For full text and images, consider reading RQ in print, on a Sunday afternoon, sun streaming through your window, coffee in hand, and nary a phone alert within sight or in earshot… just fine words, fine design, and the opportunity to make a stitch in time. // Subscribe or buy a single issue today. // Print is dead. Long live print. //