People often wonder about the environmental movement and its inability to effect a discernible change upon the devastation done to the environment due to the corporate pursuit of profit. Centuries of Christian ideology and the capitalist mindset have convinced us that humankind is above nature and that nature's needs must accede to the needs of the dominant life-form on Earth. Now, we are collectively paying for this, as the environment continues to decline, and cancer-causing chemicals invade our water and poisonous pesticides are introduced into our food. Not to mention the nuclear waste that piles up as industry refuses to find safer sources of energy due to the nature of financial expense and the harmful genetic engineering that threatens to create new organisms that are not an accepted part of nature.
Many high ecology advocates would exclaim that human civilisation itself is the cause of this destruction and that the Industrial Revolution and the enormous amounts of waste it produces are to blame. Some ecologists advocate that we must return to a more austere way of living, that the benefits of modern technology must be given up and we must all take voluntary vows of poverty to accommodate the needs of nature. In actuality, however, it is merely the capitalist mode of production that deserves the finger pointing, not the human race and its accompanying technology. One must understand the true nature of our economic laws to fully understand why the existence of the human race appears to be in opposition to the rest of nature. As socialists will correctly point out, it's not humanity that is the problem, but rather the way our current system of production for profit works. To do this, a brief recap of why production under capitalism occurs is in order.
Under capitalism, industry produces goods for the sole purpose of making a profit. Everything else takes a back seat to this profit motive. The spectre of financial expense hangs over every endeavour. As a result, the most financially inexpensive methods of waste disposal will be used, as well as the most financially expedient means of controlling pests of crops. Thus, safer and less environmentally hazardous methods of energy production, such as solar and wind, are set aside in favour of financially "cheaper" but non-renewable fossil fuels. Destructive and environmentally dangerous methods such as nuclear power are used in place of other sources that may be far safer, because the development of these safer sources would be more expensive from a "financial" standpoint (actually, under socialism, it's quite possible that nuclear power would be used in a safer and more responsible way than under capitalism). To compound the problem is the fact that the vast majority of the people in a capitalist world, the working class, do not make production decisions. These are made by the capitalist class, and these decisions are made solely towards the goal of increasing corporate profits. These firms are each in vicious competition with each other, and they must outperform other businesses on the market or fold. Thus, safer but costly methods of waste disposal and safer energy sources, all of which are currently technologically possible, are too financially expensive to utilize. Hence, the needs of the corporate hierarchy come before the needs of the working class and the biosphere itself. Attempts by regulatory bodies of the capitalist government to control these abuses amount to almost nothing, since the capitalists are the ones who ultimately fund the nests of the politicians. As a result of the above, safe environmental measures aren't enforced.
Even worse, the working class is blackmailed into choosing between jobs or the environment, i.e., they are told that in order to bear the costs of implementing expensive safety measures for the safe disposal of waste, downsizing on jobs must occur. Faced with this Catch-22 situation, and being dependent upon the capitalist class for their wages, the working class usually decides to keep their jobs and pray that the resulting environmental damage won't destroy human life on the planet during their lifetime, or cause horrific outbreaks of cancer and other diseases on the next generation. We can only hope that things do not get too bad in the next few decades, and that the planet Earth will continue to be able to sustain us. Never is capitalism blamed for the problem. Instead, we are told that the causes are unknown, that they are an unavoidable fact of living in an industrialised world, or that humankind is naturally "evil" and that our dominance of the Earth is to be expected and even encouraged for metaphysical reasons.
In a socialist world, these problems would be entirely avoided under the new world economic order. Without profit as the determining factor of production, and since society and all of its industries would be based on cooperation and not competition, different industrial facilities would not be engaged in a mad competiton to outdo each other. The concept of financial cost wouldn't exist; hence, any feasible method of containing waste would be enacted quickly and efficiently, with no need to worry about money. Also, since we would be collectively in control of the economy, rather then having the facilities privately owned and controlled, it would be easy for the working class to vote for technology and research to find safer methods of energy production. No longer would the human race be at odds with nature. We also wouldn't have to give up the benefits of advanced technology. Further, because we would not have an advertising market, we would not be constantly told that we need huge amounts of useless gimmicks and wasteful junk, nor would be compelled to purchase huge amounts of goods for the purpose of looking "wealthy" or to provide us with status symbols, since personal enrichment would no longer be a factor in the cultural mindset. All of the waste produced by capitalism, such as the plastic used to wrap items that are mostly only good for advertising, and the resulting garbage that it creates, would be eliminated. Thus, the high ecology advocates insistence on only "appropriate" technology being used would probably be fulfilled, for the most part.
Most importantly, production under socialism would be geared towards meeting the needs of everyone, including the collective need for a healthy environment and a peaceful co-existence with the other lifeforms on this planet, and not simply a privileged few's need to make a profit.
Hence, the existence of the human race and its industrial society is not inherently at odds with the environment; only the continued acceptance of a socio-economic system based on production for profit is.
From here
http://www.angelfire.com/co2/socialism/theenvironment.html
No comments:
Post a Comment