Environmental Science: Two World Views

1. Almost everywhere we see controversy regarding environmental issues. In all these disputes over environmental issues, the opposing sides represent two world views. A world view may be defined as a set of assumptions that a person holds regarding the nature of the world and how it works. The two world views in opposition here are cornu-copianism and environmentalism.

2. Cornucopianism is the dominant world view that has been held by Western civilization throughout most of history. It embodies the assumption that all parts of the environment (air, water, soil, minerals and all plant and animal species) are natural resources to be exploited for the advantage of humans, either individually or as a society. In ad­dition, this view assumes that these natural resources are essentially infinite. If one is exhausted, another will be found to replace it. Con­sequently, the history of development of Western civilization, especially the development of the countries of North and South America, is al­most synonymous with the stripping of forests, slaughter of wild ani­mals, mining minerals, and discarding of wastes with little thought to pollution or regard for the long-term impact on the earth or future generations. Cornucopianism is still the dominant world view and has been adopted by most peoples of the world, as witnessed by the fact that these exploitative activities continue in all countries.

3. In the last three decades or so, however, the second world view, environmentalism, has been gradually gaining ground. Environmen­talism embodies the assumptions that what we generally view as natu­ral resources are products of the natural environment. It follows, then, that resources will be limited by the regenerative capacities of the nat­ural environment. Furthermore, even the limited resources will be pro­vided only insofar as the natural environment is protected and main­tained. Thus, our survival literally depends on suitable protection and

4

stewardship of the natural environment. Actually environmentalism is not a new world view. Native Americans and a number of other cul­tures hold a similar world view, but these cultures have long since been dominated if not exterminated by Western European culture.

4. The cornucopian world view is not without virtue. People who hold it are fond of pointing out that without the exploitation of natural resources, we would still be living in caves and chasing wild animals with spears and clubs. The "good old days" of primitively living in har­mony with nature exist only in the imagination. Primitive tribes suffer a high incidence of disease, discomfort, pain, suffering, and infant mortality and a short life expectancy. Thus, cornucopians emphasize that the exploitation that some environmentalists decry has enabled most of us to enjoy a high standard of living that few of us would give up willingly. Cornucopians assume that continuing exploitation is the only way to achieve further human progress.

5. We do not wish to argue the point that exploitation has been a necessary part of civilization. In any case, the past is past. Where envi­ronmentalists take issue with cornucopians is what road we should take to achieve a bright future and continued human progress.

6. Environmentalists are firmly convinced that continuing the trend of increasing exploitation is unsustainable. Sustainability refers to whether or not a process can be continued indefinitely. To say that a process is unsustainable means that it will inevitably reach a dead end. It is like a profligate heir squandering her or his inheritance: Environ­mentalists see exploitative trends as squandering our inheritance. That is, exploitation of various components of the environment is under­cutting the various systems that provide natural resources. As in the case of the profligate heir, this exploitation can lead humanity only to poverty and destitution.

7. Innumerable points may be listed to back up the argument that humanity is on a collision course with the environment's ability to pro­vide what cornucopians see as resources. Among the most prominent points are:

— Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and other pollut­ants are likely to cause global warming (if it is not already taking place).

— The protective ozone shield is being depleted by CFC (chlorofluo-rocarbons) emissions.

—Thousands of plant and animal species are being lost each year as a result of the cutting of tropical forests and destruction of other nat­ural areas.

—Traces of toxic chemicals are found throughout the Great Lakes and many other waterways and even the oceans.

—Acid precipitation caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants is falling over large regions of the world.

—Water resources are being exhausted by overuse in many regions of the world.

—Natural waterways everywhere are being polluted and degraded by sewage and agricultural runoff.

—Everywhere there are mounting problems with the disposal of chem­ical wastes and refuse.

8. Because environmentalists make statements to the effect that continuing current trends of exploitation can lead only to impoverish­ment, they are frequently attacked by cornucopians as being doom-sayers and against progress. Neither of those accusations is true.

9. First, environmentalists make no pretense of predicting the fu­ture. What environmentalists do is make use of the old saying: "If you don't like where you are going — change directions." By pointing out where continued exploitation of natural resources may lead, environ­mentalists hope to get society to change directions. Similarly, there will be no progress except into poverty and deprivation if humanity continues to destroy the natural environment. The only way to main­tain human progress in a positive direction is to learn to protect and enhance the natural environment, which supports all life.

10. Environmentalists are not just antidevelopment, anti-exploita­
tion, or antiwhatever. Instead, they offer and promote sustainable al­
ternatives. The principle is analogous to the profligate heir changing
living habits in order to live on the interest of the inheritance rather
than squandering the capital. The productive capacity of the natural
environment is such that, if properly protected and managed, it can
yield an abundant interest, and — in theory at least — humanity can
live very comfortably on that interest.