Moosa's Challenge

Rantings of a radical environmentalist

Rewilding the Earth

Each of my blogs will talk about modernity and of the environment.   But I do not want to be pedantic, to give lectures, or to pontificate.  I will ask questions, raise issues, put forward hypothesis, and often indulge in metaphysical speculations.   Let me be honest: particularly in the last three years, I have been both baffled and also deeply troubled by what is happening recently ; and the ideas I have been entertaining are strange, impractical, and even wild and utopian.  So this is my plan for my blogs: Each day, depending upon how the spirit of this vast wilderness moves me, I want to come up with some challenge for you, so you could partake of my mental journey of the last three years. My challenge is to come up witth a significant challenge for you every single day.

            

 Now you, readers of my blog, may ask, why should you bother with wild ideas that have nothing to do with your everyday concerns?  Well, for starters, they are thought-provoking, and hopefully fun.  But, more importantly, because life is an adventure, and we have to once in a while leave our comfort zone, and take challenges simply for the hell of it.  (Howard is a testimony to this spirit, as this trip he undertakes with a blind guy amply demonstrates.)  I would be very glad if you will peruse my thoughts with the same spirit of adventure.

 To give you a fore-taste of what is to come, here is my first challenge, expressed as a question: if we could make the earth wild again, by passing the Rewilding Amendment, in each of the industrialized nations, should we go for it?  Now of course this is a wild and impractical idea.  Impractical or not, is it right?  That is the question.

There is a reason why I am for this Amendment.  For the first time in human history we have the resources, will and technology to rapidly consume and vastly alter our natural environment.  The look, the make-up, and the fate of the earth is now literally in our hands, in a way that was not the case before.   But I just cannot reconcile myself with this new situation of ours. I want to limit the power humans have to alter and damage the earth.  I want a wild, natural and free earth once more.  Hence I want an imposition of the “Rewilding Amendment”; and it would have these elements:

First, urbanization, development, mining, farming, industries and technology will be restricted to only 25% of the land.  Humans would have to live in compact cities, for those who want the modern amenities, and more specifically, in several storied apartments, rather than have individual houses with large backyards.  (And within the city, those who want to work the land, besides plots dedicated for gardening, rooftops could also be used.)  The compactness of the city, and the use of public transportation, would really cut down of energy consumption.  And since very limited natural resources are at one’s disposal, to ensure even less wastage of precious resources, cars will by law be manufactured to be slow-moving, very light and small, and battery-run.


Secondly, the 75% of the land will be kept primitive, but not kept as a national park.  Of course anyone could choose to go out in natural lands and live and farm there.  But there will be only a few highways criss-crossing through that vast natural area, highways connecting the urban and industrial/mining areas.  Hardly any other roads will be built by the state.  And absolutely no plumbing, electricity and fiber optic lines will be provided there by the state.  No mining, no large scale, industrial farming and No use of heavy machinery will be permitted there. 

Finally, since agricultural lands will be so limited, and since food for the many will have to be grown, state initiated innovative measures will have to be introduced.  Multi-storied greenhouses, hydroponics, as an alternative to large mono cultivations.  Instead of real cows and pigs, how about lab cultivated (in test tubes) meat proteins?  And all the roof-tops of the apartments would be given over to growing of crops.

Challenge: Is it necessary to have something like a Rewilding Amendment to save the earth?  And is the wild and natural earth such a great cause for which we ought to make such a great sacrifice?   In short, if Rewilding Amendment could be brought about, should we go for it?   Well, our conversation continues . .

Happiness

Should making the earth wild again be regarded as a cruel idea, because wilderness can only be bought with human misery? 

Vast wilderness translates into less prosperity.   And it cannot be denied that many, even perhaps the majority of, people will do much for being affluent and successful.  Who can deny that many of us toil all of our days to be well off?  And there are some indications that affluence is to some degree tied to wellbeing.  Crimes, divorce rates, suicides, perhaps even drug use, etc., seem to rise and fall with the level of affluence. People as a rule want affluence; and affluence enhances self confidence of many.  Hence, if we go with what people want, then we have to promote affluence, even at the price of wilderness.

But I stand for the Rewilding Amendment; and I want to be maximally fair.  This is the challenge I have for you all.  On what grounds can the Rewilding Amendment be justified, given that this will come at the expense of at least some affluence, which is what many want, and which enhances to some degree the wellbeing of the many?  Put differently, how can a state that is fair to all, yet obstruct the wishes of many?  Clearly to do so is to disregard them, or at least, regard them as less worthy.   By what measurement, if such exist,  can the happiness that the many seek can nevertheless be regarded as unworthy?

Let me state my stance on this.  And you examine whether you agree with my response to this challenge.

I declare that the state is duty-bound to honor only that happiness that comes from fulfilling or realizing one’s conception of the good.  And the democratic state, that wants to be maximally fair to all, will honor all conception of the good, as far as this is possible, with equal respect.  What do I mean by this?  We have a conception of the good, if there is some activity that suits our nature, and that we want to therefore do or perform, even if we have to make quite a bit of sacrifice for this.  Creative production of artifacts by a craftsman, writing poetry, training students as a teacher so they can excel in a particular field, playing a musical instrument, or going for physical challenges and taking risks; all these activities are part and parcel of various conceptions of the good being realized.  In short, happiness that come from people fulfilling their individual calling (of being able to do the activity that best suit them) is what the fair state ought to promote.

But what to do about the fact that many people do not seek life’s meaning in pursuing their calling but in getting rich at all costs?   Must the state be committed to promoting or supporting the quest for affluence?  Here is a reason why this is not the case: When people desire prosperity and desire a high standard of living, the primary reason motivating them is, they are going for conspicuous consumption.  The pleasure they get comes from having more and better toys than others.  We ought not to sacrifice our pristine and radiant earth so the many can better show off. If people were in quest of fulfilling their callings, then the activity itself would be satisfying in and of itself, regardless of the money they make (so long as they can survive).  To fulfill a creative calling requires time, leisure and focus; however, quest for affluence is exhausting, time-consuming and a major distraction from our life’s focus.

I will make my proposal clear now.  Suppose there is Society A, which has a high standard of living, but to achieve this, this society is intricate, noisy, harried, demanding, unrelenting, fast paced, etc.  On the other hand, Society B has a much lower standard of living, but it is slow paced with vast natural beauty, and people can survive with little, given the low costs; and so there is more leisure.  Of course, many people will be frustrated in Society B, because it provides little opportunity for making it big. My proposal requires that Society B be given priority over Society A by the state,  because in Society B there is the kind of happiness that counts.


My value judgment: vast and magnificent earth ought not to be sacrificed for the sake of paltry pleasures, that come from vanity, from competing and making comparisons with others.  Do you agree with this?  Do you agree that the state ought to be committed to this value stance?  Or do you think that I am being tyrannical or fanatical, in insisting that what I regard is right must have sway throughout the world?  Thinking about this is your challenge for the duration of my adventures with Howard.

Liberty

 What I want is a predominantly wild and natural earth, with small islands of dense, technological, urban centers; and the way it could be achieved is by the “Rewilding Amendment”.  .  You may object that such an amendment violates the liberties safeguarded by the constitution of liberal democracies.  Since what I envision will constrict economic and technological growth, and since there is freedom that comes from cars, computers, highly developed medical care systems, and developed infrastructure, you may protest that my proposal spells the end of our liberties.  Let me address this.

 Let me accept the facts. There is no question that technologically advanced, liberal societies, with their declarations of individual rights, do indeed promote certain kind of liberties. And my Rewilding Amendment does go against these liberties and rights.   The Rewilding Amendment would have us make do with what resources we can extract from a very small part of the earth, and would compel those who desire modern amenities to live in dense urban settings, and exact a heavy price on those who want nature, by requiring them to lead primitive lives in the wild.  Is this not severe limitations to our liberties, you may ask?  But, as I will show, for all the liberties modern Western nations provide, it blocks the realization of autonomous living.  And that is the problem.

Scholars distinguish these two kinds of liberties: negative and positive liberties.  Simply stated, negative liberties exist in proportion to how much free we are of external restraints, coercions, obstacles or impediments to our choices.  Positive liberties, on the other hand, have to do with having more choices at our disposal (rather than merely being free of constraints).  Now notice that we enhance our realm of choices, and thereby positive liberties, when we have access to goods and services that provide us with more choices.  So primitive tribes living in the Amazon forests, where people can comport themselves as they please, would have greater negative liberties than would citizens of a densely urban, crowded, technologically advanced, state.   However, the tribes would have fewer positive liberties, since their choices are constricted by them not having access to computers, modern medicine, cars, advanced tools, etc.  Ostensibly, liberalism would want to advance a net maximum of  combined positive and negative liberties. 

This is the strategy adopted in liberal West: To promote positive liberties, it will make use of tax revenue to invest in the infrastructure for building an advanced technological society (like fiber optic lines, cheap sources of energy, roads, efficient means of communications, etc).   However, negative liberties are also safeguarded as well, because no one is compelled to buy into the system, and people can opt out from using these technologies, or even boot out of office that party that adopts policies not to their liking. I will not get into a host of objections here, about how we really do not have a choice to opt out of technologies, how big corporations can buy of elections, governments and policies to their liking, etc.  Let me get to the main issue directly.

Ted Kaszinski (the “Unabomber”), in his “Manifesto” (easily accessible in the internet) has demonstrated the eventual total loss of autonomy, as the final progression of our technological society. Because we are not suited by nature for the world we are creating, humans will require serious intervention of chemicals, nano technology, computer chips attached to our brains, etc., , so as to be better suited for our very complex, harried, and artificial environment resulting eventually in us becoming technological artifacts ourselves, he argues.  If such intervention results in us being more efficient, more in control, and making more money, people will eventually buy into it. And Kurzweil, in his The Singularity is Near, argues that digital growth will enable us to merge human brains with machines in not too distant a future.

So what is my point?  Consider what happens when we maximize positive liberties, by going all out and by letting nano technologies and computer chips be imbedded in the deep recesses of our brains and elsewhere.    We could very well be more efficient, capable, in control, and purchase expensive technologies, resulting in being able to  realize more options and have greter realm of choices, but at what price? We would have become industrial artifices ourselves.   And a society that respects everyone’s right to choose, by not only not putting any impediments to our deciding whether we want this serious intervention of technologies in our bodies, but even providing us with interest free loans to make such a choice, would enhance our negative liberties on this point.  But the result of these positive and negative liberties is a total loss of human autonomy.  This complete dependency on technology, this sacrifice of our humanity to become better cogs of the vast system we live in, would be the direct result of a society dedicated to promoting positive and negative liberties.  My point is, while liberal society does promote a greater net sum of negative and positive liberties, it also furthers human enslavement, because it does not further human autonomy.

Consider other ways human autonomy is disregarded in liberal democracies, despite our constitution and all the rights it safeguards.    Given the vast intricacies of a technological society, dedicated to the quest for affluence, where growth, production and consumption are all at a very high level indeed, much has to be done to be employable.  Full-time employment, for paying off all the many expenses of present day living, is the only way for preserving a modicum of self respect, by not becoming a ward of the state and living off welfare.   But this requires vast expenditure of our spiritual energies.  First, there is vast training required for being employable, then our workplace demands mental attention and effort, and then there is the requirement to keep up with rapidly changing times by constant training and retraining.  In the past we were physically bound, but we were mentally free; we belonged to ourselves psychologically. With high standard of living comes high costs of living, requiring brutal compulsion to do all for our base material needs, resulting  in loss of autonomy.

Another way our autonomy is jeopardized today, is, by the undermining of personal control in crucial aspects of our existence.  Consider the many ways we are at the mercy of vast schemes, systems and processes that lie beyond our control.  For all your hard work and dedication to your employer, you could get fired.  There is loss of control over our life, when local economy is at the mercy of international corporations, global economies, and the national & international markets.  In the past we could count on the stability of the mother earth; and we could vouchsafe for the quality of our (local) food, water and air.    But today our control of our own food, water and air is now increasingly at the mercy of governmental environmental policies, actions of industries, other nations and vast corporations.  

Do our present liberal, technologically advanced nations attempt to maximize liberties?  For all their shortcomings, I am willing to admit that they do permit far greater negative and positive liberties then would be found in an earth made wild again.    But for all these liberties, leading a life of an autonomous human today is becoming increasingly difficult.

           

What my Rewilding Amendment will do is, it makes autonomy possible, by providing the possibility of breaking out free and starting anew, of going out in the wilderness so as to build a new life through one’s effort  and realizing new possibilities of living, of shaping either our individual or our communal lives on a model entirely unique and congenial to ourselves, independently of the main stream.  This is not possible in the all-encompassing nature of our modern civilization, where there is no vast wilderness to escape to and start anew.  We are tethered to human schemes that dominate and manage the entire planet.