Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn’t what’s throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It’s capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so “surviving this” might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we’re maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
While I agree that the capitalist requirement for unceasing exponential growth is at the heart of modern climate change, it is slightly disingenuous to claim that humans have been living in harmony with nature prior to the industrial revolution. There is a lot of evidence for pre-modern humans clear cutting swathes of land, wiping out megafauna, and treating the environment as an object for exploitation long before the notion of infinite growth became commonplace.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
More animistic cultures/religions tend to emphasise the importance of balance with nature and recognise humanity’s place in the larger ecology, but they are therefore also less likely to propogate widely and become a dominant global force.
Fair point with megafauna, but my counterpoint would be that we were struggling to exist, like any other animal, and extinction is a part of nature. Driving things extinct isn’t inherently unnatural.
But then you could say, “Yes, but the same applies to climate change. The earliest oxygen-exhaling plants poisoned the atmosphere and lead to the extinction of more ancient plants.” (Or was it the giant fungus? I forget.) And you’d have a point there too.
But I think the key difference is having a viable alternative and being aware of the suffering we’re causing. We know what we’re doing; the plants did not, they just evolved that way. We have alternatives to farming and hunting animals until their extinction; early inhabitants of Aotearoa, who drove the Moa to extinction, probably didn’t. I will pick preserving megafauna over having my hypothetical preferred megafauna dinner, but I can’t pretend I’d pick preserving megafauna over preventing my family from starving to death.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
I agree so strongly that that philosophy definitely makes it much worse. My main issue with Abrahamic religions is the notion that god resembles man (and vice versa) instead of resembling forces of nature.
But I don’t think monotheism was a prevailing philosophy when the megafauna were driven to extinction. Animals (and sometimes even plants) have driven each other to extinction many times in our planet’s history, and we’re just animals. I think the only thing that gives us the potential to rise above that status is knowledge, and that acting as caretakers to all other living beings on this planet is the highest application of that knowledge in the short-term. Long-term, the highest application is extending the reach of life to other planets, even if it’s as simple as intentional panspermia with extremophile microbes.
Lots of good points here and well articulated. I agree that the critical difference between homo-sapiens and ancient forms of speciocide lies in our understanding of the consequences of our actions, and therefore (at least theoretically) having cognitive some control over our actions. I also agree that in most cases megafauna extinctions weren’t driven by a monotheistic philosophy, however, I would argue that in those cases we were likely ignorant to the full consequences of our actions thereby mitigating culpability to some extent. Either way, I wanted to push back on the notion of preindustrial humans being in harmony with nature (and perhaps the idea of harmonious nature more broadly) as I don’t think there is a lot of evidence for that beyond a few isolated examples.
I completely agree that we should be aspiring to the role of caretakers of this planet we’ve all found ourselves on, and to me the greatest tragedy of the human condition is the recognition of how much we’ve perverted that role. I find it hard to look forward to any kind of future for humanity when we are currently so at odds with that goal, and with seemingly no desire to alter course as a collective.
Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn’t what’s throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It’s capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so “surviving this” might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we’re maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
While I agree that the capitalist requirement for unceasing exponential growth is at the heart of modern climate change, it is slightly disingenuous to claim that humans have been living in harmony with nature prior to the industrial revolution. There is a lot of evidence for pre-modern humans clear cutting swathes of land, wiping out megafauna, and treating the environment as an object for exploitation long before the notion of infinite growth became commonplace.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
More animistic cultures/religions tend to emphasise the importance of balance with nature and recognise humanity’s place in the larger ecology, but they are therefore also less likely to propogate widely and become a dominant global force.
Fair point with megafauna, but my counterpoint would be that we were struggling to exist, like any other animal, and extinction is a part of nature. Driving things extinct isn’t inherently unnatural.
But then you could say, “Yes, but the same applies to climate change. The earliest oxygen-exhaling plants poisoned the atmosphere and lead to the extinction of more ancient plants.” (Or was it the giant fungus? I forget.) And you’d have a point there too.
But I think the key difference is having a viable alternative and being aware of the suffering we’re causing. We know what we’re doing; the plants did not, they just evolved that way. We have alternatives to farming and hunting animals until their extinction; early inhabitants of Aotearoa, who drove the Moa to extinction, probably didn’t. I will pick preserving megafauna over having my hypothetical preferred megafauna dinner, but I can’t pretend I’d pick preserving megafauna over preventing my family from starving to death.
I agree so strongly that that philosophy definitely makes it much worse. My main issue with Abrahamic religions is the notion that god resembles man (and vice versa) instead of resembling forces of nature.
But I don’t think monotheism was a prevailing philosophy when the megafauna were driven to extinction. Animals (and sometimes even plants) have driven each other to extinction many times in our planet’s history, and we’re just animals. I think the only thing that gives us the potential to rise above that status is knowledge, and that acting as caretakers to all other living beings on this planet is the highest application of that knowledge in the short-term. Long-term, the highest application is extending the reach of life to other planets, even if it’s as simple as intentional panspermia with extremophile microbes.
Lots of good points here and well articulated. I agree that the critical difference between homo-sapiens and ancient forms of speciocide lies in our understanding of the consequences of our actions, and therefore (at least theoretically) having cognitive some control over our actions. I also agree that in most cases megafauna extinctions weren’t driven by a monotheistic philosophy, however, I would argue that in those cases we were likely ignorant to the full consequences of our actions thereby mitigating culpability to some extent. Either way, I wanted to push back on the notion of preindustrial humans being in harmony with nature (and perhaps the idea of harmonious nature more broadly) as I don’t think there is a lot of evidence for that beyond a few isolated examples.
I completely agree that we should be aspiring to the role of caretakers of this planet we’ve all found ourselves on, and to me the greatest tragedy of the human condition is the recognition of how much we’ve perverted that role. I find it hard to look forward to any kind of future for humanity when we are currently so at odds with that goal, and with seemingly no desire to alter course as a collective.