Writings

Synopsis

The question of whether or not we need nature is the basis of heated debate. The simple answer is yes, though complications arise in attempting to quantify how much is needed. Developed countries must accept their reliance on other countries, differing self-interests from developing countries, accepting the need for compromise so that the needs off all can be met.

All will concede that a certain level of nature is needed. However, it is impossible to define a universally accepted quantity of “need”. What's more, “need” can be actual or perceived. Among countries, a general working definition of nature and base consensus on use must be reached to allow exploitation of our natural resources without jeopardizing the self-interests of our progeny.

We are affected by the “nature” existing in the other countries of the world. As such, the natural world is a global system. The different ecosystems are as interdependent as they are intra-dependent. Choices made regarding natural resource use in other countries will affect our own natural resources; Developed countries must essentially “pick up the slack” for natural resource abuses that are unavoidable in developing countries.

Americans, the most rapid consumers in the world, have become mega-consumers due to poor education and the marketing industry perpetuating the mega-consumer mindset. We must expand the nation’s worldview and realize the interconnectedness amongst the nations of the world and the importance of working together for a common solution.

A global consensus on laws and regulations regarding natural resources is needed in order to maintain a “sustainable” amount of nature, and the approach to reaching this consensus must be site specific.

Once an understanding of differing needs is reached, we can better answer the question of how much nature we need and reach a stable level of consumption that meets the needs of all.



Do we need nature? This simple question is the basis of heated debate between those who want to preserve nature and those who want to exploit it. The simple answer is yes, though complications arise in attempting to quantify how much is needed. We, the developed countries, need nature to maintain our self-interests, which entails maintaining our current standard of living and preferably improving on such. The problem we face is the need to adapt less destructive consumption levels since the standard at which we now live leads towards a cataclysmic end. Part of this adaptation is the realization of our reliance on other countries to maintain our standard of living. The self-interests of developing countries, however, differ from those of developed countries. This idea of differing self-interests must be realized and accepted so that compromises can be made, resulting in all needs being met.

Deciding how much nature is needed requires an established definition of nature. Developed countries tend to define nature as natural resources needed to maintain their self-interests, such as wood or petroleum. As such, this definition does not consider the needs of developing countries. Therefore, a general working definition and base consensus must be reached among the stakeholders involved: politicians, ecologists, the industries that rely on the forests and oceans for their livelihood, etc. These stakeholders will concede that a certain level of nature is needed, as the absence of nature in any definition leaves us bereft of the ability to actualize our self-interests. However, it is impossible to define a universally accepted quantity of “need”. What's more, this “need” for nature can be further broken down into two subgroups: actual needs and perceived needs. An actual need is a need for without which life cannot perpetuate, such as potable water or oxygen. A perceived need is the desire for something we feel we cannot live without, such as indoor plumbing. Perceived needs make defining a quantity impossible. The following example illustrates the two types of need and the potential conflict that arises. It also illuminates the call for a general consensus in order to stave off loss for all.

A small town in rural Uzbekistan relies on a local river to irrigate crops and stave off dehydration. These needs conflict with the large international mining company located upstream from this village. Most of the mineworkers are in Uzbekistan temporarily from developed countries and are used to a higher quality of living. Thus, to appease their employees, the company supplies indoor plumbing and decorative fountains (the latter an aesthetic often used as a testament of affluence). These are wasteful, perceived needs of a very scarce natural resource in an environment that provides a very limited supply. Being downriver and having no strong voice, the actual needs of the small local village lose out. If attention is not drawn more closely to the scarcity of water, the river may be run dry and there will be no water left for anyone’s use. Thus actual and perceived needs contained within the same geography do battle, and without a consensus amongst the stakeholders, disaster is not inconceivable.

Reaching a consensus is mandatory to allow exploitation of our natural resources without jeopardizing the self-interests of our progeny. Exploiting natural resources will continue, but we must ensure their use is both sustainable and consistent with our current and/or desired quality of life. Unfortunately, the criteria for what qualifies as a sustainable use of our natural resources and quality of life is both a subjective and variable measurement. We are treading on dangerous ground when we attempt to make long-term predictions about a dynamic system such as nature, and we must move forward carefully so as not to make rash decisions that will have long ranging negative effects on any group of people or nation. Regrettably, it is impossible to know how badly a resource is needed until it is gone. If current natural resource usage continues to surpass the regeneration rate of nature, our descendants may find themselves incapable of sustaining a quality of life remotely similar to what we have had in our lifetime. More drastically, we may find ourselves unable to maintain our current self-interests in our own lifetimes. Furthermore, whether we realize it or not, we are affected by the “nature” existing in the other countries of the world. Underdeveloped countries provide a majority of the natural resources that we exploit. If these countries were to lose their natural resources, we would need to find a new location to exploit or place more reliance on our own resources. Unfortunately, there are a limited number of natural resource locations on this planet and once we run out of new locations we have nowhere else to turn.

As such, the natural world is a global system. The different ecosystems are as interdependent as they are intra-dependent. Choices made regarding natural resource use in other countries will affect our own natural resources; e.g., Americans’ use of imported petroleum precludes them from depleting as much of their own petroleum reserves. Likewise, choices made in other nations affect our quality of life; e.g., South American countries using rainforest trees for cooking fuel contribute to the greenhouse effect that diminishes the amount of clean, breathable air for the rest of the world. While developed countries tend to focus only on how their use of natural resources affects them locally, they must realize that developing countries, knowingly or not, rely on developed countries’ responsible use of natural resources. Developed countries must essentially “pick up the slack” for natural resource abuses that are unavoidable in developing countries. The following example illustrates how this should work.

The majority of the population in Central American countries is poor and landless. An overwhelming majority of the land in these countries is owned and exploited by the wealthy population to produce exportable products. This leaves the majority with no way to provide themselves with consumables as they have no money and no land of their own on which to grow food crops. Consequently they have an actual need to slash and burn sections of the rainforest to expose the only available arable land for food crops. To counteract the environmental damage caused by the destruction of the rainforest, developed countries such as the United States, which produces the worlds’ greatest amount of greenhouse gasses in large part due to automobile exhaust, need to establish and enforce more aggressive means to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce.

Unfortunately, American consumers have developed self-interests not conducive to a global consensus. Their consumption rate has been gaining momentum and will eventually create critical issues with natural resources the world over; their consumption rate has become too rapid to provide adequate time for natural resources to replenish. The following statistics support this claim:

· “Developed nations annually consume about 80 percent of the fossil energy worldwide, while developing nations, which have about 75 percent of the world’s population, consume only 20 percent.”1
· “Fossil energy use in different US economic sectors has increased 20- to 1,000-fold in the past three to four decades, attesting to America’s heavy reliance on this finite energy resource to support its affluent lifestyle”. 1

The authors of this book are among those who believe that natural resources are being exploited to our eventual detriment. “The world supply of oil is projected to last for 50 years at current pumping rates. The supply of natural gas is adequate for 20 to 35 years, and the coal supply for about 100 years. However, these estimates are based on current consumption rates and current population numbers. If all people in the world enjoyed a standard of living and energy consumption similar to that of the US average and the world population continued to grow at a rate of 1.5 percent, the world’s fossil fuel reserves would last a mere 15 years.” 1 These statistics illuminate the mindset of the current consumer-based American society-a society of consumers has become a nation of mega-consumers. They further emphasize the need for a worldly consensus on natural resource use rather than adoption of the American consumer based mindset.

Myriad reasons encourage the mega-consumer lifestyle. The marketing profession and the media play an enormous role in promoting our “need” for material goods. Starting at a young age, marketers target children in order to instill in them a lifelong consumer mindset. As these children grow into teenagers, marketing methodology changes. No longer do techniques merely focus on having children cajole their parents into making a purchase. Marketers take advantage of teenagers by focusing on their insecurities and providing an entrance into “popular society” through stylish clothes and current trends. As teenagers face a torrent of emotions and desires to belong, this scheme lashes them to their fate as a consumer.

A lack of a quality education in the US also contributes to the mega-consumers mindset. A poor education creates a citizen insulated from the problems of the rest of the world, the needs inherent in these problems, and the essential differences between countries. One aspect of this poor education is the average education garnered from public schools in the US. The following statistics illustrate the plight of the country’s schools:

· Proper supplies are essential to providing quality educations. As a result of aging, outdated facilities or severe overcrowding, 75% of the nation’s schools are inadequate to meet the needs of school children.2
· The United States trails many other countries in the quantity of resources they devote to public education. A study of 30 democratic countries ranked the US as 15th in the amount of total direct public expenditure for education as a percent of gross domestic product. 3
· Reading as a child creates a foundation for creative and critical thinking skills as well as the ability to adopt a separate point of view. The ability to analyze a situation from a different point of view becomes crucial when dealing with other cultures. However, a recent comparison with 38 countries ranked US 8th graders last in the number of hours per day spent on reading for enjoyment. 3

Lack of desire to experience other cultures is another aspect of education gaining popularity in the US. The popularly held notion of America as the most powerful nation on Earth facilitates a feeling of complacency and promotes the illusion that we are capable of operating completely independent from other countries. Consequently, fewer people see merit in leaving their home country to experience the multitude of differences among cultures. The lack of these experiences adds to the difficulty in identifying with and finding empathy for the plights and needs, actual or perceived, of other countries.

The compounding effect of poor education and the skills of those in the marketing industry perpetuate the mega-consumer mindset. To overcome this downward spiral of mega-consumerism and help ensure the preservation of our self-interests, we must expand the nation’s worldview and realize the interconnectedness amongst the nations of the world and the importance of working together for a common solution.

A global consensus on laws and regulations regarding natural resources is needed in order to maintain a “sustainable” amount of nature. The general approach taken must be site-specific. As mentioned in the previous examples, different cultures and places have different real and perceived needs. The real needs of societies must be used as the basis for these decisions. Furthermore, concessions must favor developing countries, as their quality of life is inferior to that of developed nations.

Once an understanding of differing needs is reached, we can change self-interests to be more global in scope, better answer the question of how much nature we need, and reach a stable level of consumption that meets the needs of all. We can then end the debate on how much nature we need and begin the debate over how much nature we want.


Sources

1 Environmental Integrity. Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health, Pimentel, David. Washington, D.C., 2000. p.126

2 American Society of Civil Engineers. 2001 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

3 National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2000. February 2002.