Progress

I am inclined to reduce environmental problems to their simplest conceptualizations. Humans are an element in the earth’s dynamic ecological system, and we have evolved a difference from the other parts that grows broader and deeper as time goes on. The difference is based in our structuring and manipulation of mental representations of our surrounding world. From this basis comes intelligence, creative problem solving, complex social organization, and the constructed forms that surround me for miles on every side. Human history is characterized by divergence from the “natural” – the less conscious world – in material, cultural, and philosophical dimensions.

I have no love for progress as an intensification of present society. But this is not progress as I would define it, only stagnation. Here we find a more basic definition – the pursuit of ideals that constitute a break with the simpler past. Understanding, truth, and power all draw us to greater representational nuance, and conspire to define our un-natural appearance. In them we progress, for better and for worse.

Environmental considerations suggest that we should conform in certain ways to the principles of our ecological system. This means reining in our values that have grown out of anthropocentric worldviews. But this is not regression; rather, the capacity to refigure our imperatives would be a triumph of human reason over instinct. I see truer progress in changing ourselves than in continuing to carelessly change the world.

This possibility is largely what drives me to study the environment – imagining a post-growth society gives one an outlet for critiques of the present. I love to think about a people freed from imperatives of material accumulation and advancement, awakened to what is meaningful in human existence. I believe that a simple consideration of life leads to different values than we currently espouse, and I see serious environmental disruption as a potential catalyst for cultural change.

The risk of thinking simply about society, though, is that it tempts one to personify something bearing little resemblance to a person. Rather than millions of individual epiphanies, change occurs through political action, economic shifts, and media venues. To describe the first, environmental sociologists use the concept of the “treadmill of production,” the demand for continuous economic growth. Politicians must balance this demand against calls for environmental protection, and economic accumulation is often privileged, despite the rhetoric employed.

The theory of ecological modernization, related to the idea of sustainable development, states that new technologies and corporate responsibility will allow industrial society to reduce its ecological impact while continuing to grow. But this theory represents a best-case scenario, and is based on the economy’s exemplars, not the average firm. The fundamental stratification of society is important to any discussion of its response to environmental change.

Just as many people do not reap the benefits of the progress pushed by economic elites, no form of progress penetrates easily into mass culture. Scientific understanding, artistic forms, and philosophical perspectives are enjoyed in full only by those within certain subcultures. Thus, progressive responses to the environment are made by those close to environmental philosophies, aware of environmental science, and economically able to change their lifestyle, while a majority of citizens practice a faintly modified business-as-usual.

Climate change will likely prove disastrous for some segments of society and bearable for others, but the range of possibilities within that statement makes prediction difficult. What we may confidently say, though, is that adaptation will not be smooth, and progress – technological, scientific, and cultural – will not be profound. But on the other hand, progress will occur, whether by anticipating our problems, or learning from our mistakes.

Advertisement