There is something sadly comical about the continued failure of technology to deal with the oil blow out in the Gulf of Mexico. It reminds me of the cartoon about the Coyote and the Road Runner in which the hapless varmint continues to be thwarted in his attempts to capture -- and eat -- the lightning-quick bird. I see the Coyote as the logical and mechanistic approach of humanity to controlling a force of nature and the Road Runner as that force of nature that is impervious to any attempts to capture and tame it. That the problem that President Obama seems to be facing now is that he needs to "show more empathy" in order to improve his standing in the polls by kneeling at the shore of the befouled coast and looking mournful reminds me of another metaphorical tale: King Canute attempting to stop the tide of the ocean by commanding it not to touch him. For the public to "feel better" about the President if they see that he is upset is, to me, a childish impulse that comes from the need to be comforted in the midst of a disaster rather than face the potential consequences: an environmental threat to the future of the planet.
I would hope that the public dialogue about this disaster would open up the issue of not just why it happened, but about the whole dynamics of an economic system that is moving at great speed toward its own destruction. When I read the letters to the editor, editorials, and other comments on the oil spill, it seems to me that the fundamentals of logic that were supposed to be a part of our public education system in the past are not being taught any longer. The argument is that increased demand for energy sources is a given, and that we must continue to provide and develop it even more extensively in order for us to maintain our "way of life." For me the ultimate result of this "way of life" is "a way to death."
The planet we live on has finite resources. The economic system that drives the global economy depends on growth and waste (If things aren't wasted and can be reused or conserved, there is a decline in growth.). If the economic system has no way of surviving without growth and waste, and we recognize that simple dynamic, for the good of humanity it will eventually have to disappear, certainly in its present form. But if it continues as it presently is structured, the future, several generations from now, will be bleak.
We have a choice: change the fundamental way we are living or die as a species. This choice has to be made fairly soon. Although in the past I would have been tempted to offer the socialist system as a panacea, I have long since recognized that under "industrial strength socialism," our resources could be just as rapidly -- if more equitably -- depleted.
I remember a book written in the 60's by Paul Ehrlich called The Population Bomb. I was very impressed with his argument that if population growth were not slowed or altered, the earth would soon run out of national resources to feed the human race and massive starvation would ensue. He predicted that this disaster would occur in the following decades and though massive starvation has not occurred, a billion people on this planet live in a semi-starved condition, death from malnutrition not being unusual. But so far as population control is concerned, there is evidence that as contraceptive devices have become more readily available to women through education, they have chosen to have fewer children. As a consequence, under population in some of the heavily industrialized countries is a serious problem because of negative growth rates rather than a balanced population rate.
But now it is not the threat of over population that confronts us: it's over consumption. The level of material comfort enjoyed by the majority of residents of industrialized countries, if achieved by the two most populous countries in the world -- China and India -- would require, according to some economists, the equivalent of the natural resources of six planets the size of earth. Moreover, the energy requirements of these two countries, in terms of the pollution their industries cause, could also poison the planet, if not by global warming, then by global pollution.
As it is, the United States consumes natural resources at the rate of four times that of its share of the earth's population. It alone, at present rates, would probably need two "USA only" planets to maintain its inhabitants' life style. And a number of scientists have warned that demand for clean water, for agricultural, industrial, and private use, will become a serious problem as well in the near future as the ice caps in various parts of the northern hemisphere melt and some of the world's largest rivers begin to run dry. And this will happen whether or not the oceans of the world are not completely polluted by the mess in the Gulf.
So, as is often asked in philosophical works that demand social action: "What is to be done?" I don't believe that letting things stay as they are is a viable option, yet that seems to be the thrust of our political and social agenda: figuring out less toxic ways of sustaining an unsustainable life style. I realize also that trying to turn this ocean liner economy on a dime is unrealistic, but if that ocean liner is the "Titanic," then I would suggest time is running out. We must begin to develop low-level energy consumption systems with the same sense of diligence and unity of purpose that we -- and that "we" includes all advanced industrialized countries -- showed when the Allies developed the A-bomb through the Manhattan Project. It is not enough for there to be hundreds of "save the earth" blogs in cyberspace when the Powers that Be -- both in corporate and governmental circles -- are still trying to figure out ways to increase the "bottom line" for the short-term benefit of the insatiable share-holders and credulous voters they supposedly serve.
Simpler technologies for simpler lives that make the alternatives more attractive to what we have now must be developed. More natural energy-efficient modes of transportation like solar-powered vehicles of all kinds and sizes, and mechanically advantaged bicycles or, better, tricycles, for those who are not adept at bicycling, need to be invented and, if they already have been developed, they need to be, widely used. A simple and immediate way of cutting down on urban pollution would be four-minimum-in-a-car pooling for commuters. Such programs exist already, but like many good suggestions, they are only known about and followed by the few. To accomplish this, citizens of this planet should learn the value of empathy and altruism, two of the higher human traits, that should be extolled rather than ridiculed and disparaged as they too often are.
As an educator I believe that music and the arts must become a more central form of human expression, rather than consumption for its own sake. Presently, in large part because of the emphasis on tests scores in reading and math, these programs are the most vulnerable to budget cuts and are marginalized. A more communitarian form of social interaction must be advanced as a vital part of our culture rather than the continued marketing of the "technology of separation" embodied by iPods which cut people off from each other in public spaces. We must begin to educate young learners more effectively and persistently to instill in them healthy eating and living habits, not just for their own well-being but to avoid a future generation of obese, chronic invalids that will drive our health-care system into dysfunction.
And since so much of our food, entertainment, and cyber-dictive habits are truly hard to break, education must move young learners into seriously thinking about a future in which, because of their efforts, the planet may still be fit for human habitation. The future "marketplace" must become a global "farmer's marketplace" where the barter system of exchanging goods for services predominates over the "stock marketplace." The old slogan: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" needs a second one: "The earth is a terrible thing to waste."