The article by Thomas Homer-Dixon paints a grim picture for the future of our society. “Unconventional Wisdom” lays out an exponentially increasing path of destruction for the Earth as economic growth expands beyond the natural resources available to fuel it. He gives a number of different examples of future failings in the environment – rare-earth element shortages are already threatening many industries and the petroleum is requiring more and more energy to harvest (Homer-Dixon says that it has dropped from 100/1 in the 1930s to only 15/1 at present in the United States).
However, after Thomas Homer-Dixon lays out the grave circumstances of continuous economic growth, his conclusion is even more disturbing. As he states, “humankind is in a box.” For everyone in the world that is living on under $2 a day, economic growth is necessary for survival now – but this same growth is leading to an early end for life on the planet. It is a vicious cycle that Homer-Dixon thinks can only be altered through a drastic restructuring of societal thought.
Because of the direction that he believes society must take in order to reach a solution, I agree with Hannah and Yumiko that Homer-Dixon would be classified as a social green based on the system developed by Clapp and Dauvergne in Paths to a Green World. His argument is based on over-use of the planet, massive harmful consumption and the destruction that this use causes, and his answer is focused on societal change. In his mind, people must first change their mind before they can actually make a significant and meaningful change in their actions. Is this possible?
Unfortunately, I don’t know if this sweeping societal change is feasible. Ultimately, in the mind of Thomas Homer-Dixon, the world’s poor are actually the hingepiece for change. He places them in a catch-22 in regards to the planet’s future – survive now or survive later. How can you explain that choice to someone living in a mud hut in rural Kenya?
No comments:
Post a Comment