“Challenging Environments inspire Civilizing Responses” - Discuss
As I write this paper, brainstorming about civilization and its effects on the planet, I hear the T.V. in the background blending with my thoughts. I hear that it is Barack Obama’s 100th day in power. He is predicted to be one of the most influential American Presidents to date and the first African-American to hold such power. I hear that the H1N1 Virus, also known as the Human Swine Flu pandemic, is threatening global civilization, and many people around the world are losing their jobs due to the global economic recession. I hear about the various wars going on in the Middle East and the handfuls of soldiers returning home dead each week. I look down at my blank page, questioning how we can even begin to consider ourselves civilized. My attention is thrown back to the T.V.: a special on global warming is being advertised. More talk about the level of carbon in the atmosphere, which has stayed consistently below 300 parts per million for hundreds of thousands of years during extreme changes in climate. But today, it has been reported that the level of carbon has risen over an unprecedented 430 parts per million, which has scientifically been associated with anthropocentric climate change (Flavin 2008). It has become a revolutionary time that we live in. One where we have come to recognize that in our efforts to control the planet using technology we may now face effects that are uncontrollable. It is essential to look at how we have reached this situation to understand how we are going to work through this crisis, and once again understand the workings of nature and how to incorporate the natural environment into our everyday lives, attitudes, and thoughts. This paper will discuss how challenging environments inspire responses. I will first explore what come to pass for a ‘civilized life’, then question whether a ‘civilized life’ is consistent with ecological sustainability, since human struggle for ‘the good life’ has meant exploitation of the planet. I will then look for hope, in the way the circumstances of crisis inspire humans to change, through a civilized response, needed to ensure the stability of both humanity and the planet.
What does it mean to be civilized?
First, we must consider the meaning of the term civilization and what it means to be civilized. The term civilization was first used in the 18th century in Europe to describe man’s attempt to rid himself of nature and become more polite and domesticated.
Believers in progress tend to place civilization towards the end of [history]… it is
usually treated as a state of being which societies attain in the course of growth out
of primitivism, a phase in an inevitable pattern, procured by the natural inflation of
the human mind, or by technological accretion; or else social evolution is the motor
force, determined in turn by economics and the means of production, or by
demographics and the demands of consumption. (Fernádez-Armesto 2000, p.21)
However, evolution tends to misguide people into thinking that civilization is the superior way of life, simply because it has occurred later in history; it is important to remember that societies themselves do not evolve, though they are consistently changing (Ingold 1986). Discrepancies arise when comparing one type of society to another. Who is to say that societies, such as nomadic societies are less civilized than permanent societies? There is a sense of achievement that people who are civilized hold, which in their minds set them apart from non-civilized people. This is where the term civilization becomes muddled, because today we live in a society where 25,000 people die everyday from contaminated water and the three wealthiest people in the world have a combined wealth greater than 48 of the poorest countries (Wright 2004); yet, we consider ourselves civilized. Humans typically reconstruct their environments thinking only of themselves and have often thought that they are not part of the global ecological system and that they are superior to the animal kingdom. Eco-psychology tends to understand humanity in terms of its disconnection from nature and how lifestyles are contributing to the irreversible effects on the ecosystem (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). Intelligence has given humans the power to believe that they are greater than they truly are. However, to fully understand human complexity, human habitat and relation to nature must be considered (Fernádez-Armesto 2000). Hence, I have chosen to adopt the definition of ‘civilization’ as defined by Fernádez-Armesto (2000), which he defines as “a type of relationship: a relationship to the natural environment, recrafted, by the civilizing impulse, to meet human demand” (p. 5), since this meaning stresses the effects human activity has on the natural environment. Fernádez-Armesto (2000) also believes that all civilized societies have one commonality, which is that they are all programmed “for the systematic refashioning of nature” (p. 18).
The farming revolution, which transformed societies from nomadic hunter-gatherers to stationary peoples created a new form of sustenance, one which today still forms the basis of the world’s economy (Wright 2004). Abusing nature has been ingrained into Western culture since its formation and shows that unsustainable practices were actually promoted to gain individual wealth and control (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004).
Unfortunately, there has been a general trend throughout history, which has shown that civilizations often exploit their environments to such an extent that it leads to their demise (Fernádez-Armesto 2000). Wright (2004) asks of humanity: do people lack the intuition to see the long-range consequences of their actions? By analyzing and reviewing past civilizations he deduces that
such a civilization is therefore most unstable at its peak, when it has reached
maximum demand on the ecology. Unless a new source of wealth or energy
appears, it has no room left to raise production or absorb the shock of natural
fluctuations. The only way onward is to keep wringing new loans from nature and
humanity. Once nature starts to foreclose – with erosion, crop failure, famine,
disease – the social contact breaks down. (Wright 2004, p.84)
In 1986, Ingold stated that
the promise of evolutionary optimism holds its greatest attraction for those
struggling to regain a sense of destiny in a world that seems to be spiraling out of
control; one might add however, that to engage in such ethereal struggle is by and
large the privilege of the affluent, who can afford to brood over the affairs of the
cosmos whilst the rest of us get on with the urgent business of life. (p. 27-28)
As much as this may be true, the state of our planet has been pushed to its limits; this is now a problem everyone on the planet must face. “It is often said that [we] are all blending into a single global civilization” (Fernádez-Armesto 2000, p.19). This global civilization must now begin to reconsider what it means to be civilized and how our civilization has affected the stability of our planet. We have different cultures and political systems, but we have become a global economy, which is feasting on our planet’s natural capital. And if there were to be a crash, this time it would shatter world civilization (Wright 2004). “The lessons… [of] the past is this: that the health of land and water – and of woods, which are the keepers of water – can be the only lasting basis for any civilization’s survival and success” (Wright 2004, p. 105). Humanity is now living in a civilization, with an environment so utterly challenging that we have become extremely vulnerable to large scale fluctuations of climate, to problems of water of water quality and availability, and to diminished resources. As the global recession has proven not even wealth will protect us – all the money in the world cannot reverse the damage we have already done (Wright 2004). Wright (2004) determines that
things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The
10,000 year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don’t
do now…it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From
recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle. (p.131)
Humanity has a strong tendency to avoid reacting to issues and generally holds off until these problems are too large to manage and with not enough time to solve them (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). One of our greatest problems is that we do not have the ability to forecast what our present actions will do to the planet in the future (Bryson 2003). Bryson (2003) believes that as humans we are the luckiest living beings on this planet because we are alive and have the ability to appreciate it, but “every advance in human knowledge appears to unleash a greater potential for destruction” (Ingold 1986, p.28).
Civilization has lead to a challenging environment
This next section will evaluate how the growth of civilization has resulted in such a challenging environment. Rachel Carson’s (1962) book entitled Silent Spring is viewed as one of the most influential books reporting on the environment in the 20th century. Through endless examples, Carson brings to light the negative effects pesticides, insecticides and herbicides have on water, soil, air quality, biodiversity, human health, and essentially the destruction of the Earth. Through her thorough investigation in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s she finds information that is completely daunting and never before seen on this planet. Her research initiates the global ecological movement of that time by recognizing the importance of the relationship between plants, animals and humans to their environment and survival. Unfortunately, almost 50 years later, other than the discontinued use of DTT, agricultural methods throughout the world still have a long way to go in eliminating these harmful chemicals. We are kidding ourselves into believing that we have only recently been awoken to the state of the environment. In 1874, Marsh claimed a powerful stake when he defined man as a ‘destructive power’ stating, “man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discord” (p. 134). We have come to this world with the pleasure to enjoy the Earth’s advantages, but at the same time caused destruction and waste. As a result we have deranged the harmonious relationship between nature. Ingold (2000) defines environment as
a relative term – relative, that is to the being whose environment it is. Just as there
can be no organism without an environment, so also there can be no environment
without an organism. Thus my environment is the world as it exists and takes on
meaning in relation to me, and in the sense it came into existence and undergoes
development with me and around me. (p. 20)
Through the process of civilization we have overruled our environments and the natural food chain by increasing our population beyond its limits (Ponting 2007); and removing ourselves from the natural environment when we begun to live in houses, embarking on our long journey of dismissing and withdrawing from nature (Ingold 2000). It has long been assumed that nature has existed for the convenience of humanity alone (Carson 1962). “In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind even to his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference” (Carson 1962, p. 50). Carson (1962) asks of civilization: “whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized” (p. 99).
Civilization, like natural instinct, has been driven by survival. Like our animal cousins humans strive to live lives of the highest quality, always competing to be the highest on the food chain. In human terms this does not necessarily mean being the strongest, but the wealthiest, the most able to achieve a higher quality of life – always fighting for the ‘survival of the fittest’. Unfortunately, along the way the environment got trampled on and “virtually all of us spend far too little time trying to come to grips with the critical issues that confront civilization and help shape cultural evolution to make our society more ethical” (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004, p. 276). Many people are governed by their need for wealth; and today this need has become so overpowering in this economic-driven society we live in. Aggrandizement governs peoples’ thinking, as they believe their happiness and life depend
on it. Thus hindering their relationship with the natural environment and others, as they are always striving to be the best in this dog-eat-dog world (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004). This has lead to a society that over-consumes and overpopulates, never feeling satisfied (Jackson 2008). Globalization has given people the power to create greater distances between consumer and producer resulting in a process that extends consequences further and
further away to remote nations. This displacement of consequences also happens through time, as environmental degradation generally takes generations to appear. Giving the consumer the illusion of minimal environmental costs, which makes it harder and harder for individuals to understand their actions and take responsibility for personal decisions based on environmental impact (Dauvergne 2008). Environmental auditing has never been
considered in the corporate world, as it is not required within countries or international agreements and policies. Corporations have been built on the foundation to make money at any cost, whether that being social or environmental (Watson & MacKay 2003). The idea is that there is no need to consider these issues as they have no connotation to increasing profit. Due to the lack of environmental auditing in the corporate world, companies cannot grasp the costs they are placing on the environment through waste and other harmful actions, and can therefore never take responsibility for their misuse. The environment has always been viewed as an externality, which has made it increasingly more challenging to place a value on it as a good (Watson & MacKay 2003).
“Racism, religious conflict, war, dictatorships, poverty, and the like – are still important and are critical components of the human predicament because they have become global concerns” (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004, p. 266); however, we are incapable of viewing these issues as a whole and still treat them in isolation from each other (Homer-Dixon 2006). Homer-Dixon (2006) establishes five crises, which he names ‘tectonic stresses’ as: population stress, energy stress, environmental stress, climate stress and economic stress; which if and when they occur at the same time will cause catastrophic world problems. He emphasized that most of these stresses have resulted due to humanity’s disturbed relationship with nature; a relationship that we no longer have the freedom to ignore. Homer-Dixon (2006) predicts possible future failure where several stresses climax together resulting in a ‘planetary emergency’, which will “overload our societies’ ability to cope” (p.17). Despite this, he deduces that civilizations have the ability to renew through a process he conceives known as ‘catagenesis’, which is a three stage growth cycle of breakdown, reorganization, and renewal. We must change our traditional ways of thinking and behaving to ensure we protect the environment. Our current attitude about our relationship with the environment is ‘deeply dangerous’ (Home-Dixon 2006) as it has long been believed that when we want something from the environment we will get it. The appropriation – taking something for one’s own use, without permission – of nature was investigated by Ingold (1987) as the connection between labour and the environment. He deduced that through labour one may appropriate, and through this connection he find himself. Freedom as we know it, is a right, though when related to the environment is a luxury we no longer can afford to attain to the extent that we have been. Hardin (1968) describes freedom as the nemesis of the commons, which he uses as a metaphor for society, when he states “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all” (p. 1244). When people living in a common place have all exercised their right to freedom by not considering the environment, it inevitably leads to its destruction.
Human behaviour and peoples’ way of life have developed by “’empty world’ behaviour” (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004, p. 264), when the concepts of environmentalism and ecology did not yet exist and humanity did not yet have the power or impact to destroy the planet. There is no question in many scientists’ mind that it is only a matter of time before the life-supporting system of our planet has become catastrophically overstrained due to human action (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004). We are still yet to see a change in the laws governing our society, which were set out to follow a pattern of ethics that now poorly fit the changeable, overcrowded, over-consuming world we live in (Hardin 1968). We are now at a more complex and challenging phase of establishment as “environments are never complete but continually under construction” (Ingold 2000, p.172). Nature can no longer be ignored by humanity, and we have learned the hard way that nature has the power to affect every aspect of peoples’ lives, it determines our survival as “we’re not separate from it, we’re dependent on it, and when there’s trouble in nature, there’s trouble in society” (Homer-Dixon 2006, p. 13). Every minute that we continue to deny the earnestness of the global position, we are placing more and more responsibility on future generations to take the action we are unable to carry out (Homer-Dixon 2006). Balanced against this history has shown that humanity has the ability to “constantly reinvent our societies, ourselves, and our future” (Homer-Dixon 2006, p. 30), so there is still hope for us, but have we challenged the environment beyond its limits? Is there still hope for the Earth?
Civilizing responses
“Human beings are now facing not one change, but an uninterrupted chain of changes that affect the very orientation of their entire existence. To make things more difficult, changes are succeeding one another with unprecedented speed” (King & Schneider 1991, p. 208). We need to confront this dangerous route we are traveling on (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004) and a much greater emphasis needs to be placed on human accomplishment, which stresses the relationship not only with other people, but also between humans and nature (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2004). We need to begin looking at our lives and rethinking our understanding of it; specifically, we must think about our relationship with nature and the natural process (Ingold 2000). We must keep in mind that
sustainability just doesn’t come naturally to humankind. But it is a mistake to
assume that evolutionary motivations are all selfish. Evolution does not preclude
moral, social, and altruistic behaviours. Social behaviours evolved in humans
precisely because they offer selective advantages to the species. (Jackson 2008, p.
55)
We must overcome our intuition and civilized people must learn how to perceive environmental issues differently. By thinking in a more holistic manner, people will be able to address environmental problems, as they will be able to see these issues within their interconnected adaptive complex system. Once a person can view him or herself as part of the larger system, they can begin the transformation to environmentally-conscious thinking and behaviour. By creating these connections to the natural world, one recognizes their interdependence with it (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). As our human predicament becomes more critical it becomes necessary to understand the connection between the mind, environment and culture (Ehrlich & Ehrlich). Populations in developing nations are advancing quickly in the 21st century and many of these people strive to live the Great
American Dream. The world cannot sustain our current lifestyles. How will it handle millions more living like there are three planets? Jackson (2008) proposes that leading a high quality life will be possible for all if we are able to reduce our overall impact in three ways: (1) “changing lifestyles; (2) improving the efficiency of technology; or (3) reducing the number of people on the planet” (p.46). Benyus (1997) believes that the chaos and complexity theory may be helpful when describing our current situation, as it advocates that unstable systems are bound for change. We must begin a new wave of behaviour where we no longer modify the world to fit our needs, but adapt ourselves for the needs of the Earth.
Changing Lifestyles
When assessing how a society will change their behaviour, one must look at the connection between what one does to what one thinks (Shove 2004). A survey confirmed that 83% of Americans show concerns for the environment; however, only 18% regard themselves as actively changing their lives to enhance the environment. This will only change when there are positive images of a sustainable future (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). Ehrlich & Ehrlich (2004) believe a new system of living must be put in place, which they refer to as the theory of ‘supercircumscription’. They state that we need to become a civilization that has the ability to change its ways and consciously evolve. “The new paradigm therefore must focus on how we can adjust power relations, institutions, and behaviours to make the human future as pleasant, equitable, and sustainable as possible” (p. 267). Du Nann Winter & Koger (2004) believe this transformation will occur when everyone has become their ‘ecological self’, which is a self that is more connected, one that is beyond the self, and a larger more experienced self. They believe this will be the revolutionary point when civilizations will begin to make more environmentally responsible decisions. At this time, the need to consume to satisfy oneself will be removed. Once this has occurred people will become so connected with nature that they protect it, like they protect themselves. Our difficulty in reaching the ecological self is our limited experiences with nature (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004), because for so long society has associated comfort with the home, creating a barrier far from our natural environment (Shove 2004). Reconnecting with the Earth and experiencing the wilderness will open people up to opportunities and feelings, which will enhance our relationship with nature (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). Tolle (2005) describes this experience in his book A New Earth: Awakening to Life’s Purpose -
When we go into a forest that has not been interfered with by man, our thinking
mind will see only disorder and chaos all around us. It won’t even be able to
differentiate between life (good) and death (bad) anymore since everywhere new life
grows out of rotting and decaying matter. Only if we are still enough inside and the
noise of thinking subsides can we become aware that there is a hidden harmony
here, a sacredness, a higher order in which everything has its perfect place and
could not be other than what it is and the way it is. (p.194-195)
The ecological self will combat societies’ addiction to over-consume as our cravings are replaced with a “deeply satisfying sense of wholeness and abundance” (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004, p. 195).
High levels of unnecessary consumption have generally been proven to lead to greater unhappiness within social relationships (Jackson 2008). Material goods hold a much higher value than just the product itself, its value is held in its status symbol of society.
As a consequence, today too many people buy things they don’t need with money
they don’t have to impress people they don’t like, regardless of the costs involved
and the environmental impact caused. The willingness to consume is a social as
well as a psychological phenomenon, and its impacts are environmental as well as
social and economic. (Spangenberg 2004, p. 45)
An emphasis must be placed on the need for balanced consumption, which takes into account social and environmental costs. People need to become ‘responsible consumers’ in a world that is bound by a structural system of government policies, international fair trade, and multinational corporations that are driven by the precautionary approach. The global pattern of consumption must be transformed, as the efforts made to date have
been much too slow (Dauvergne 2008). Precautionary approaches to protecting the global environment will ensure that corporations will not manufacture any new products that retain negative environmental consequences (Dauvergne 2008). McDonough & Braungart (2002) think of this as a new industrial revolution of cradle-to-cradle thinking, which is not a new idea in managing materials’ life cycles. Nature has been facilitating these cycles since its beginning. Through their passionate research in engineering and design, the duo created an innovative and inspiring practical revolution that shows how the world in a material sense can function in an ‘eco-effective’ process that is at one with nature: where products are designed not only for their use but their reuse as well. Their vision to eliminate waste is successful through material life cycles where waste equals food. Waste, which is put back into the cycle, encourages renewal and growth. Being conscious of the materials being used in our products and how they affect the environment brings society one step closer to reconnecting with nature.
Civilization will be at a loss unless we are led by leaders who advocate the values of “restraint, quality and devotion on a global scale” (Piasecki 2000, p. 114). Governmental policies will ensure that products reflect the true social and environmental costs associated with natural resources. These policies must involve creating incentives to reduce consumption that aim to protect the world environment, not just solely for the interest in one’s own country’s environment (Dauvergne 2008). Environmentally and socially driven political leadership will be essential in overcoming overpopulation, over-consumption, and environmental degradation (Ehrlich & Ehrlich). Incremental changes do not seem to be working and it is now time for some radical changes to be made in how we live our lives. Policy plays a large part in governing our actions; however, implementing new policies is a timely process, especially worldwide policies. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, little progress has been made in forming policies since concrete evidence has been found that climate change is occurring due to human action. Policy needs to be driven by both leaders and community members, and “to reach this goal [of sustainable development] people must adopt radically different values, mindsets, and patterns of behaviour” (Schmandt 2000, p. 204). Strong government leadership will be the deciding factor on how change can come about (Jackson 2008). Friedman (2008) believes that America needs to take the strength of its economy and worldwide status to set a precedent for the world to follow – and become an environmental global leader. He also believes that a green America would be more influential than any type of global agreement; and that becoming green is being committed to something bigger than yourself – accepting that the world really does matter. He states that we need to replace the system of living rather than trying to fix one piece at a time, which tends to exacerbate the problem. By mimicking nature in a holistic manner through a set of ‘ethics of conservation’ we will be able to sustain civilization and the planet (Friedman 2008).
Along with changing the structure of policies governing consumption it is important to consistently inform people about the sustainability of their choices (Shove 2004). Conformity and social learning can explain patterns of resistance or change, and how new ideas and attitudes stretch great distances (Ehrlich & Ehrlich). Through education, humanity can be transformed into a “permanent state of adaptation in order to be able to face uncertainty” (King & Schneider 1991, p. 209). Investment in sustainability is essential for transforming the conventional economic system to a sustainable system (Baue 2008). Natural capital should be adopted, which is capitalism that recognizes the interconnection between production of man-made capital and natural capital: a type of capitalism that must be implemented into economic systems worldwide to ensure economic prosperity, that which civilization depends. Conventional economic capitalism, which ignores natural capital has shown us nature’s transformation from valueless to invaluable and we now must revolutionize our systems to match the current state of disruption (Hawken, Lovins & Lovins 2001). Friedman (2008) believes what lies ahead is a great opportunity for growth and that once we understand the true costs of living on this planet we will become accountable for our use and production, and take ownership of the repercussions.
Improving the efficiency of technology
Any growth in technology has been paralleled by growth in civilization, so strongly that the two cannot be separate (Shove 2004).
Energy is the lifeblood of all societies… we can understand much about a society’s
activities by tracing its flows of energy. Through the ages, the ways which human
beings have produced and used energy have sporadically advanced, and each
advance has defined a new stage in technology and the civilization it sustains.
(Homer-Dixon 2006, p. 36)
Ensuring a reduction in carbon emissions and creating a low-carbon economy depends on three things says Flavin (2008), in the State of the World: “capturing and storing the carbon contained in fossil fuels, reducing energy consumption through new technologies and lifestyles, and shifting to carbon-free energy technologies” (p. 78). Energy technologies need to be much more efficient, as well over 50% of energy harvested is lost as heat
(Flavin 2008). Friedman (2008) proposes a ‘green code’, which is not just a fad or trend, but a way of life. The goal of the ‘green code’ is to bring renewable energies to people all over the world – to improve their lives and encourage their ambitions. This will be achieved by studying natural models and basing design technologies on nature to solve the Earth’s problems (Benyus 1997).
Reducing the number of people on the planet
Studies have shown that when organisms overpopulate their ecosystems, surpassing its carrying capacity, a severe crash and environmental destruction occurs (Loomis 2004). The threat of a population crash is compounded by the gap between the rich and the poor as “people in the developed world make up 20 percent of the total population yet consume 86 percent of the world’s assets. The rest of humanity lives on the remaining 14 percent” (Loomis 2004, p.210). It is hard for people to understand the concept of sustainability in relation to carrying capacity as the economic world has for so long been driven by growth, however it is important for this understanding to occur so that the population can be reduced and sustained. Hardin (1968) envisions a draconian-like place where population is controlled by mutual coercion where the freedom to reproduce is eliminated. Policies to reduce population have been implemented somewhat successfully and unsuccessfully in different nations throughout the world. However, implementing a population reduction in democratic countries will be a great challenge as rights and freedoms will be removed. The drive and success in reducing population will only be achieved by an environmentally conscious society, who together decides that reducing the population is the only civilized action to take, for humanity and the planet (Loomis 2004).
Conclusion
Civilization has slowly become more educated, and more enlightened political leaders have emerged, bringing hope and resulting in worldwide revolutions for various cultural and ethnic groups – such as woman, black and gay rights. Now it is time to focus on the planet’s rights. Far too much time has been spent debating about global warming and about the actions people need to take, but only action will actually change the outcome of this crisis (Du Nann Winter & Koger 2004). My attention was drawn again to the television, the news anchor was highlighting the daily news, I was surprised by the positivity in her tone: 200 new species of frogs were found in Madagascar, and today marked the first day that the state of South Australia in Australia banned plastic bags statewide. It is time to redefine the meaning of ‘civilization’. We need to adopt a holistic definition that measures not only humanity’s development, but is also centered on enlightenment and sophistication that is consistent with ecological sustainable development. To achieve this revolution we must think about what we want a civilized world to look like and begin to take action by changing our thoughts and beliefs. It is time that we educate ourselves and elect leaders who have visions of a brighter future for both society and the planet. Many of the authors reviewed in this essay have expressed messages of hope in their compositions. Hope and belief that in the near future humanity will come together and consciously change the meaning of civilization as we know it. Once we have achieved all this we can work together as a global civilization to consciously reduce and sustain our population, reconnect with nature, slowly wean our planet back to health and stability, and find a way to live in harmony. Optimism is essential to our existence, and there is no other way, because “without us, Earth will abide and endure; without her, however, we could not even be” (Weisman 2007, p.287). Though the future may seem bleak, it is not without potential for a shift in consciousness on a global scale. Human beings are an adaptable species, who’s resilience has historically stood up against all odds. Our current situation is no exception. It is up to us, as citizens of the Earth, to once again prevail against adversity.
References
Baue, B., 2008, ‘Chapter 13: Investing for Sustainability’, State of the environment 2008:
Innovations for a sustainable economy, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, p. 180-
195.
Benyus, J.M., 1997, Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature, HarperCollins, New York.
Bryson, B. 2003, A short history of nearly everything, Broadway Books, New York.
Carson, R., 1962, Silent Spring, Penquin Books, England.
Dauvergne, P., 2008, Shadow of consumption: consequences for the global environment,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Du Nann Winter, D., & Koger, S.M., 2004, The psychology of environmental problems,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Ehrlich, P.R, & Ehrlich, A.H., 2004, ‘Chapter 9: human behaviour at the millennium’ One
with Nineveh: politics, consumption and the human future, Island Press,
Washington, p. 264–287.
Fernádez-Armesto, F., 2000, ‘Introduction: the itch to civilize – civilizations and civilization’,
Civilizations, Macmillan, London, p. 1-31.
Flavin, C., 2008, ‘Chapter 6: Building a low-carbon economy’, State of the environment
2008: Innovations for a sustainable economy, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, p.
75-90.
Friedman, T.L., 2008, ‘Chapter 8: Green is the new read, white and blue’, Hot, flat and
crowded: Why we need a green revolution and how it can renew America (1st ed.),
Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 170-199.
Hardin, G., 1968, ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, vol. 162, no. 3859, December,
p. 1243-1248.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., & Lovins, L.H., 2001, ‘Chapter 1: the next industrial revolution’,
Natural capitalism: The next industrial revolution, Earthscan Publications Ltd.,
London, p. 1-21.
Homer-Dixon, T., 2006, The upside of down: catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal of
civilization, The Text Publishing Company, Victoria.
Ingold, T., 1986, ‘Chapter 1: the progress of evolution’, Evolution and social life,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1-28.
Ingold, T., 1987, ‘Chapter 9: The principle of individual autonomy and the collective
appropriation of nature’, The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and
social relations (1st ed.), University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, p. 222-242.
Ingold, T., 2000, ‘Chapter 1: Culture, nature, environment: Steps to an ecology of life’,
Perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill, Routledge,
London, p.13-26.
Ingold, T., 2000, ‘Chapter 10: Building, dwelling, living: How animals and people make
themselves at home in the world’, Perception of the environment: essays on
livelihood, dwelling and skill, Routledge, London, p. 172-188.
Jackson, T., 2008, ‘Chapter 4: The challenge of sustainable lifestyles’, State of the
environment 2008: Innovations for a sustainable economy, Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, p. 45-60.
King, A., Schneider, B., 1991, ‘Chapter 9: agent of the resolutique’, The first global
revolution: a report by the council of the club of Rome, Patheon Books, New York.
Loomis, W.F., 2004, ‘Chapter 9: Sustainable life’, Life as it is: Biology for the public
sphere, University Presses of California, Columbia and Princeton, Berkeley, p. 207-
233.
Marsh, G.P., 1874, ‘Recycling and destruction’, Man and Nature, in Wall, D., 1993, Green
history: A reader in environmental literature, philosophy and politics, Routledge,
London, p. 133-135.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M., 2002, Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make
things (1st ed), North Point Press, New York.
Piasecki, B.W. 2000, ‘Chapter 6: Leadership skills for sustainable development’, in
Schmandt, J., Ward, C.H., & Hastings, M. (eds) Sustainable development: The
challenge of transition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 113-128.
Ponting, C. 2007, A new green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of
great civilizations, Vintage Books, London.
Schmandt, J., 2000, ‘Chapter 10: From idea to action: The role of policy’, in Schmandt, J.,
Ward, C.H., & Hastings, M. (eds) Sustainable development: The challenge of
transition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 203-219.
Shove, E., 2004, ‘Chapter 6: Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: A challenge for
sustainable consumption?’ in Reisch, L.A., & Ropke, I. (ed) The ecological
economics of consumption, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, p. 111-
131.
Spangenberg, J.H., 2004, ‘Chapter 3: The society, its products and the environmental role
of consumption’, in Reisch, L.A., & Ropke, I. (ed) The ecological economics of
consumption, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, p. 32-59.
Tolle, E., 2005, A new earth: Awakening to your life’s purpose, Penguin Books, London.
Watson, M., & MacKay, J. 2003, ‘Auditing for the environment’ in Gerald, V. (ed)
Sustainability and the environment, Vol. 18 No. 8, Emerald Group Publishing,
Bradford, p. 625-630.
Weisman, A., 2007, The world without us, Thomas Dunne Books, New York.
Wright, R., 2004, A short history of progress, The Text Publishing Company, Victoria.
