When attempting to understand, explain, and change the world we humans inhabit it can be easy to forget that life and its systems are never simple. Each actor, factor, and player, be it physical or social plays a key role at keeping the system going. Yet, is keeping the system going, business as usual, really the best way? For environmentalist this question may seem to have an easy answer. Of course its not the best way, we must change the way our system sees the environment. What many still fail to change is themselves and their conceptions of the world as it is, and should be.
After reading Who Rules the Earth by Paul Steinberg, it seems to me that his primary argument would go something like: The problem is not the environment only, but our conceptions of it, and most importantly our conceptions of ourselves in relation. In Paul’s words:
“I am convinced that our greatest hope in combating a scale of climate change that significantly inhabits human flourishing lies in a turn away from a neoliberal emphasis on market-based mechanisms; ecological austerity…but above all, away from Malthusianism…and a turn toward a renewed enthusiasm for public-sector-led-large-scale infrastructure” (Steinberg 2015, 6).
Here Steinberg emphasizes the importance of the human factor, and the fact that social forces are often overlooked, with dire consequences, when approaching climate change, environments, and growth from a market based approach. He extrapolates these themes in two later arguments pertaining to the fallacy of a human carrying capacity, issues of public health, and development.
With regards to carrying capacity Steinberg argues that applying biological models used to understand the growth and sustainability of animals cannot and should not be so easily applied to human activity. He believes that, not only does this limit the known potential of humanity to innovate, this false model also does great damage to the political and social spheres of influence that have much more stagnating effects. Paul writes in relation to the conception of human carrying capacity,
“To treat humans as no different from hamsters or bacteria is to forget all of social science, all of history, politics and economics. To forget what makes humans different from the rest of nature. But we can also alter our consumption patterns radically in a second way that no other species can: we can invent new technologies. We are constantly transforming the forces of production as well” (Steinberg 2015, 55).
The problem is, we forget ourselves, and our power.
In relation to public health and problems of ‘apocalypse’ Steinberg argues that often times the best solutions for the largest number of people are often ignored in favor of larger profits for the economic and political powers that be. He sees innovation, industry, and development as solutions in and of themselves, rather than the source of the problem. For me this seems to be an almost too obvious redirect of blame by the powers that be. Shifting the blame and burden of climate change from the systems that slow progress for profit to the actions of the laborers and consumers who for all intents and purposes have very little power to enact long lasting change.
“Prior to privatization across the West, this cross-subsidization model permitted postal, rail, bus and telecommunications services to be provided to remote regions… But such a simple model is not merely off the table because it is politically unrealistic. It is off the table because the very structure of consensus-based intergovernmental and stakeholder decision-making does not allow such solutions to even be raised” (Steinberg 2015, 212).
Looking In
When I think of my own life, my choices, actions, and ability to enact change it seems almost elementary that social rules are at the base of issues of climate change and environmental action. Perhaps this is due to my background in sociology and anthropology. I value Steinberg’s assertions that social rules may be the foundation but they are not solely to blame. It is to some degree on us to change our collective conceptions of growth, progress, and development in relation to our global environment, but it will also take long term coordinated action on the level of political and economic actors to ensure lasting survival in a world constantly in flux.
For me this is comforting, as I prepare to enter a career in stream restoration and environmental restoration, it seems that I am in a good position to engage Steinberg’s argument.
“Progress and growth need not hold back sustainability. But the politics of limits, like capitalism, certainly hold back progress” (Steinberg 2015, 263).
Sources
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York: Oxford University Press.