Individualism and the Environment (Midterm Essay)

Note: I created several rough drafts of dialog of a round table discussion between Jahren, McKibben, and myself regarding the question "has the human game begun to play itself out?"  However, each draft either came out too stiff, or it dissolved into McKibben and myself bickering.  I originally intended to orient the conversation around a George Carlin bit, but I could not work it in.  Thus, I have crafted a more traditional essay for the midterm, but I will be sure to upload a post about Carlin.  

New Hampshire Sunset

The question that serves as the catalyst for this discussion was proposed by Bill McKibben in his book, Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?  McKibben argues that the size and scale of humanity has created enough leverage so that every decision we make has the potential world-ending implications.  Between our technological prowess and the staggering levels of consumption, humanity has become a destructive geological force.  Throughout his book, McKibben makes argues that while our chances or survival are slim--but still possible.  The route to survival involves a paradigm shift and push for rapid changes to ensure the human game plays on (McKibben 15).  

Similarly, Hope Jahren writes in her book, The Story of More: How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go from Here, that the anthropological trends have brought us to our current industrialized, consumerist culture.  Whereas McKibben paints climate change stemming from capitalist greed, Jahren points to the works of economist Henry George who proposed that many of the issues we face originate from humanity's inability to care for others (Jahren 14).   Even though both authors discuss the pressing need for environmentalist reforms, they highlight a slightly different approach.  However, before addressing the differences, it is critical to acknowledge that both McKibben and Jahren agree on one feature: addressing climate change will require collective action.  Certain issues cannot be solved by one individual.  If the world is going to cope with climate change, we will have to unite and face the issue as a group.  McKibben says it best when he writes, "The human game is a team sport" (McKibben 242).  

I will not lie, I did not care for McKibben's work.  I could recognize the validity of his points--our capitalist society is deeply flawed--but he stops short of encouraging readers to pursue environmentalist activism.  He lays much of the blame for the current state of affairs at the feet of the Far-Right (and other antigovernment thinkers) and socioeconomic inequality.  As someone who is a fan of individualism, I disagree quite soundly with McKibben's argument; individualism is not incompatible with environmentalism.  While I sympathize with traditional libertarianism based upon Nozick's traditions and/or anarchist thinkers, I tend to favor Rawls's political liberalism--but I digress.  Allow me to explain.

My case for individualist solution rests upon two basic assumptions: 1) As Lord Acton famously stated, "power corrupts."  For better or for worse, humans are not perfect, and positions of perceived power tend to bring out the worst in individuals.  The horrific Stanford prison experiment of the 1970's illustrates this point.  Within six days of the experiment's initiation, the experiment had to abandoned after the volunteer guards abused their position of power and volunteer prisoners experience emotional break down (1).  2) Political power is a double-edge sword, any policy that was created out of good intentions can be abused to protect what is good.  For example, the First Amendment freedom of speech, a critical element of democracy, was used in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to allow individuals affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan to propagate ideas of racial supremacy (2).  I note these trends not to participate in fearmongering but as a pragmatic recognition of historical trends.  

Building upon these two assumptions, one can conclude that government must be limited in its capacity.  Various thinkers, from Lock to Hobbes to Paine, have argued that government is created out of necessity.  Humans have recognized that their interests are best protected when a group pools their resources.  Some have taken these theories and argued that political power and human flourishing have a positive relationship.  However, there is not necessarily a causal relationship between the two.  Political power serves as a magnifying force--it takes whatever ideology is dominant/popular and applies it to the masses.  Should one create a position of power, society begins playing Russian Roulette until the game goes horribly wrong.  We create institutions by vesting a part of agency/resources so that we will be more effective as a whole, but any institution that has more political power than the sum of individuals involved is problematic.

In one sense, I agree with McKibben that the capitalist powerhouses have had a hand in creating the status quo, but I also recognize that various government policies have protected corporate interests.  We have heckled the Right's McCarthyistic fear of big, bad communist government--and rightfully so, yet the traditional Leftist response is also flawed.  Often the proposed counter to social Darwinism are extensive government initiatives for social reforms and programs.  Here is where I break with the traditional libertarian position; I see big government and big corporations as two side of the same coin: positions of power.  What, then, is the solution?  Grassroot activism and political participation.  Rather than create additional institutions and all the baggage that come with that decisions, we need to fundamentally rework the public perception.  

In the final paragraphs of his epilog McKibben states that the human game has begun to falter.  We have the capacity to change the world, but he doubts we will.  Granted, after putting the book down, I did not feel empowered or encouraged.  Climate change as we see it today is the result of decades of entrenched ideology and policies--what can one college student do?  McKibben offers no encouragement or insight.  Here one must turn to Jahren.  She encourages each individual to take steps and work towards a brighter future.  "Making a difference as to global change is often about finding the biggest lever," Jahren writes, " figuring out where to stands, and then pushing and pulling like hell" (Jahren 185).  Evaluate your priorities, stayed informed, and amend your lifestyle to align with your values.  These are activities that we each may pursue.  As Jahren notes, Americans account for a significant amount of the meat, sugar, and electrical consumption as well as a major producer of pollutants.  While corporations run the factories, we drive the cars and consume the meat and electricity.  Our individual actions contribute--for better of for worse--to overall status quo.  Jahren's argument illustrates how individual actions can contribute to the greater good.  

Bemoaning the state of affairs will change nothing.  We only have control over one aspect of life--our actions.  We cannot change the way other people will think; we cannot change their lifestyles or ideology.  If we really want to change the world, we must be the change we want to see.  Then, we must empower and encourage individuals to join the cause.

(1) https://www.prisonexp.org/the-story & https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

(2) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

Published weekly post 10/17

Commented on Dr. Oliver's post 10/12

Semester total: 34 (I think...)