Introduction

Introduction

The human species has reached a point in history at which anthropogenic environmental degradation is occurring at an alarming rate and scale: natural resource depletion, pollution, species extinction, climate change, and overpopulation are dominating global concerns. The search for a sustainable relationship with the Earth has taken on new dimensions and a sense of urgency as the human-induced environmental crisis threatens the rich tapestry of biodiversity central to our planet’s ecological foundations. According to Yoshikazu Sakamoto, “the danger of environmental catastrophe is cumulative and is bound to grow every day unless and until effective remedial measures are taken globally” (Sakamoto 2005).

Few, if any, environmental problems can be addressed by scientific, technological, or public policy solutions alone. Although political factors have played a defining role in developing the current crisis, broader philosophical views of the human place in nature are responsible for its creation. Therefore, to achieve long-term sustainability, we must reevaluate our anthropocentric worldview and establish a new ecocentric doctrine of interdependence with the natural world.

Unfortunately, environmental activists and scientists focus most of their energy dealing with short-term, ‘band aid’ solutions to society’s ecological disasters. Whereas this approach has been largely born out of necessity, it is also akin to a doctor treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself.

This doctoral research will focus on the fundamental problem we face (humanity's troubled relationship with the natural environment) as opposed to the symptoms of that problem (i.e. global warming, deforestation or over-fishing).

Within this process, one must analyze the root economic causes of our growing environmental crisis. Indeed, many of our problems are inherently rooted in the prevailing neo-liberal economic paradigm.

Towards a Sustainable Future: Redefining the Dominant Economic Worldview

According to Stephen Gill, “the logic of neo-liberalism is contradictory: it promotes global economic integration… but also generates depletion of resources and the environment… Indeed, neo-classical economic thinking that lies at the heart of neo-liberal discourse tends to ignore, with impunity, ecological constraints…” (Gill 2003).

This paradigm places primary importance on the values of the market, not on nature, and ultimately results in an uncompromising emphasis upon economic growth, the conversion of nature to commodity form, the drive for economic globalization, the industrialization of all activity, the privatization of an ever-increasing list of environmental services and industrial byproducts (such as carbon emissions), deep integration and cultural homogenization, commodity and wealth accumulation, massive urbanization and, of course, human alienation and hyper-individualism.

All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological and social sustainability on a finite Earth.

According to Gill, “such organized and institutionalized chaos stems from the increasingly liberalized economic structures of contemporary capitalism.” Gill refers to these transformative practices as “market civilization” – practices that promote the “myth of capitalist progress” and “are associated with the cumulative aspects of market integration and increasingly expansive structures of accumulation...” The most disturbing feature of this perspective, according to Gill, is that it’s “materialistic, me-oriented, short-term, and ecologically myopic” (Gill 2003).

To transform the dominant anthropocentric worldview, we must first challenge the prevailing wisdom that the goal of economies should be unlimited growth.

Many economists and politicians are blinded by the dominant mantra that “growth = more = better.” Unfortunately, reality paints a different picture and “growth” doesn’t necessarily equal “more” for most people. The average American wage, for example, is less now (in real dollars) than it was 30 years ago (Boushey and Weller 2005).

In addition, "more" is no longer synonymous with "better" - indeed, for many of us, they have become opposites. As GDP has risen in a number of industrialized countries, mental health indicators have declined (the richest countries are suffering from more depression, stress, anxiety and overall unhappiness than ever before) (Seligman 2004). Above the $10,000 mark, there is absolutely no correlation between wealth and happiness, clearly demonstrating that wealth accumulation beyond the degree to which fundamental needs are met does not automatically lead to something “better” (Seligman 2004).

Even if the economic equation of “growth = more = better” was in fact true, the world simply doesn't have enough natural resources to sustain endless economic expansion. For example, if the Chinese owned cars in the same numbers as Americans, there would be 1.1 billion more vehicles on the road - untenable in a world that is running out of oil and rapidly warming the planet in the process (the global fleet of cars today is only 800 million, in comparison) (Friedman 2007). If China continues to grow as it has, its 1.3 billion residents will be as rich as the U.S. by 2031. They will consume 1,352 million tons of grain each year (two-thirds of the world's entire 2004 grain harvest), use 99 million barrels of oil a day (15 million more than the entire world consumes at present), use more steel than all the West combined, and double the world's production of paper. Of course, that’s not even taking into account India (which, by then, will have an even bigger population) – or the rest of the world, for that matter.

The hidden reality of globalization is simply that unconstrained growth has produced, on a global scale, more inequality than prosperity and more insecurity than progress (McKibben 2007). It is environmentally unsustainable. And, it leads to isolating affluence and hyper-individualism.

Rather then promoting accelerated and endless cycles of economic expansion - a mindset that has brought the world to the brink of environmental (and, some may argue, socio-cultural) disaster - we should concentrate on creating sustainable, localized economies.

We need to move beyond "growth" as the paramount economic ideal and pursue prosperity in a more local direction, with households, cities and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own distinct culture (McKibben 2007).

Elements of such a sustainable system may include community-scale power systems instead of huge centralized power plants; co-housing communities instead of sprawling suburbs, clean and efficient public transportation systems, and local farmer’s markets instead of supermarkets relying on the mass importation of foods from around the globe. Single-mindedly going back in time to an environmental “stone age” isn’t necessary – or feasible. Indeed, economies can be localized within existing cities as easily as they are in small towns.

Government policies could help instigate and support this economic paradigm shift by removing massive agricultural subsidies, placing tariffs on goods that require an excessive amount of air and land miles to be transported, investing heavily in clean and renewable energy technology such as solar, and redesigning road systems in cities so that owning your own car becomes all but pointless.

The internet can further coalesce these efforts by connecting highly localized experiences throughout the global community.

Examples of promising local and sustainable ventures around the world abound including a community biosphere reserve in Himalayan India (where locals retain ownership of their land but concurrently develop a conservation program for the area), a world-class public transport system in Brazil which reduced energy use in the city by a quarter (Rabinovitch and Hoehn 1996), a hundred small, community-scale wind turbine projects that are being developed across America (Ebbet 2006), a Guatemalan cooperative that manufacturers farm machinery from old bicycles (creating a bicimolino which allows farmers to complete a weeks worth of work within a day and a half) (Fox 2005), the creation of self-sustaining villages in the Congo which use local materials and skills to achieve agricultural independence and improve the standard of living for residents (Petroff 2006), and, of course, classic examples of eco-villages and “intentional communities” such as EcoVillage in Ithaca, New York which has managed to reduce their per capital ecological footprint to 14 acres (the typical American uses 24 acres of the planet’s resources to support them).

We are at a tipping point (Gladwell 2000). According to Lance Morrow, “Economic rationales (more = better) that came in with Adam Smith and are now achieving gaudy fruition in globalized hallucinations like the new Shanghai or the Palm Islands of Dubai seem spiritually threadbare - spectacularly pointless. And not only pointless but something worse, stupid” (Morrow 2007). Clearly, we need to take human satisfaction and quality of life, socio-cultural durability/diversity and environmental health more seriously.

By localizing and slowing down our economic metabolism (the Slow Food and Slow Cities movements are fantastic examples of this trajectory), we may be able to secure the “goods and services” people genuinely need and care about: time, security, mental health and authentic happiness. By localizing our efforts, we can once again depend on those around us for something real, something tangible. It’s a conservative approach born out of progressive values, but also a necessary one if we are to turn back from the brink of environmental and social destruction.

Health and Sustainability

In order to slow down our economic metabolism and achieve the goals of localization, individuals must first choose simplicity over the wasteful consumption patterns of modern society. In fact, some (including the author of this proposal) would argue that the most critical step in solving issues like global warming and resource over-exploitation on a fundamental level is for individuals to voluntarily choose simplicity over the manic consumerism of contemporary society.

Over the last 30 years or so, two main arguments have been used to convince people to lead ecologically sustainable lifestyles. The first is based on ethics and essentially argues that humans have no fundamental right to dominate over, transform and ultimately destroy nature beyond that which is necessary for survival. Logically, it is a sound argument, but it can only be applied to people who have the capacity (or luxury) for such an ethical framework (a farmer in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest who needs to feed a family of 10 may not have that luxury). The second argument is based on economics: “buy a hybrid car because it will help the environment – and save you money on gas” or “create a green business so you can be environmentally responsible… and, in the long-term, improve your bottom line.” This is also a limiting argument because it is based on economic principles that can just as easily work against the environment.

As a result, it would clearly be useful to develop a new argument. This research is aimed at forming one based on mental health and well-being.

In examining the relationship between environmental ethics, voluntary simplicity, sustainability, social cohesion and happiness, this research hypothesizes that, by choosing Voluntary Simplicity, or downshifting (transitioning from a traditional Western consumerist lifestyle to a simpler ecocentric alternative), one can lead a more sustainable, meaningful, fulfilling and happier lifestyle beneficial to oneself, society and the planet.

References Cited

Boushey, Heather and Weller, Christian E., “What the Numbers Tell us,” in James Lardner and David A. Smith, eds., Inequality Matters. New York: 2005.

Ebbet, Stephanie, “Wind Turbines Gaining Power,” Boston Globe. February 24, 2006.

Fox, Conrad, “Pedal Power,” Orion, September-October 2005, p. 24.

Friedman, Thomas, “The Power of Green,” The New York Times. April 15, 2007.

Gill, Stephen, Globalization, “Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neo-Liberalism.” In Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2003.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. 2000.

McKibben, Bill, “Reversal of Fortune,” 2007, http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html?welcome=true

Morrow, Lance, “Be My Neighbor” The New York Times, April 22, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/review/Morrow.t.html?ei=5070&en=1e0f3b040ff0feab&ex=1180584000&pagewanted=print

Petroff, Alexander. Localized Economics the Key for Green Development – Report from the Congo, 2006, http://www.green-horizon.org/blog/archives/ecology/localized_econo.shtml

Rabinovitch, J and Hoehn, J. “A Sustainable Urban Transportation System: the ‘Surface Metro’ in Curitiba, Brazil.” The Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Project, Michigan State University, 1995. Rabinovitch, J and Leitman, J. “Urban Planning in Curitiba, A Brazilian City Challenges Conventional Wisdom and Relies on Low Technology to Improve the Quality of Urban Life.” Scientific American, 1996.

Sakamoto, Yoshikazu, “International Political Economy” p. 133 in Amoore, Louise editor, The Global Resistance Reader, 2005.

Seligman, Martin, Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment, 2004.