Anna Pigott, postdoctoral research fellow in the humanities, Swansea University, wants to name the child by his name - the consumer culture of some of humanity is the cause of the disaster, from which the people of the poor countries suffer first
Author: Anna Pigott, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Humanities, Swansea University
The latest report of The Living Planet published by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) brings grim news: a 60% decline in wild animal populations since 1970. Ecosystems are collapsing, and there is a clear fear that the human race will not survive either. The report repeatedly emphasizes that human consumption is to blame for this mass extinction, and journalists have been quick to amplify the message. The Guardian's headline proclaims "Humanity wipes out 60% of animal population", while the BBC reports "mass loss of wildlife caused by human consumption". No wonder: in the 148-page report, the word "humanity" appears 14 times, and "consumption" 54 times.
There is one word, however, that does not appear even once: "capitalism". It seems that when 83% of the world's fresh water ecosystems are collapsing (another horrifying figure from the report), this is not the time to get bogged down in semantics. And yet, as the ecologist Robin Wall Kimmerer wrote, "finding the words is another step in understanding."
Although the WWF report comes close to this when it mentions and uses the words "culture", "economy", "unsustainable production models" as the main problems, it fails to name capitalism as the decisive (and often - causal) connection between these things. It therefore prevents us from seeing the true nature of the problem. If we don't call it by name, we can't deal with it: it's like aiming at an invisible target.
Why capitalism?
The WWF report emphasizes "exploding human consumption", and not population growth, as the main cause of mass extinction, and goes as far as to link consumption levels with the loss of biodiversity. But he does not make it clear that it is capitalism that requires the reckless consumption. Capitalism, especially in its neoliberal form, is an ideology based on the principle of endless economic growth driven by consumption, which is simply impossible.
Industrial agriculture, an activity that the report identifies as the largest cause of species loss, is profoundly shaped by capitalism, not only because only a handful of species treated as "commodities" are considered to have any value, but because in the sole pursuit of profit and growth, " "External effects" such as pollution and the reduction of biological diversity. Yet, instead of calling out the irrationality of capitalism for the ways in which it renders most life worthless, the WWF report actually extends capitalist logic by using terms such as "natural assets" and "ecosystem services" to refer to the living world.
By obscuring capitalism with a term that is only one of its symptoms - "consumption" - there is also a risk that the blame and responsibility for the loss of species is disproportionately transferred to personal choices, while the larger and more powerful systems and institutions that persuade people to consume are absolved of blame.
What is 'humanity' anyway?
The WWF report chooses "humanity" as its unit of analysis and the media follows it. The Guardian, for example, reports that "world population is destroying the web of life". It is misleading. The WWF report itself emphasizes that only a small minority of the human population causes the vast majority of the damage. The richest 10% of the world have a strong influence.
Furthermore, there is no recognition that the impact of the climate and the collapse of biodiversity are felt by the poor people first even though they contribute the least to the problem. The recognition of this inequality is important because it is not that "humanity" per se is the problem. And since inequality is endemic, those who are to blame for it are the capitalist systems and the colonial legacy.
The use of the word "humanity" prevents us from seeing the situation as it is. It also perpetuates the feeling that humans are inherently "bad", and that it is "somehow" in our nature to consume until there is nothing left. One tweet, posted in response to the WWF posting, responded that "we are a virus with shoes," an attitude that suggests growing public apathy.
But what does it mean to direct such self-loathing towards capitalism? Not only would this be a more accurate target, but it would also empower us to see our humanity as a force for good.
break the story
Words can do much more than simply blaming the various factors. Words create and break the deep stories we build about the world, and these stories are especially important in helping us manage environmental crises. Using a general reference to "humanity" and "consumption" as causes of ecological loss is not only inaccurate, but also perpetuates a distorted perception of who we are and why we are capable of the opposite.
By naming capitalism as a root (rooted or primary) factor, on the other hand, we identify a particular set of practices and ideas that are not fixed and independent of the human condition. By doing so, we learn to see that things can be different. There is power in naming something to reveal it. As writer Rebecca Solnit writes: "Calling things by their real names reduces the lies that apologize, harass, confuse, disguise, evade or encourage inaction and indifference. It's not all that's needed to change the world, but it's an important step in that direction."
The WWF report concludes that "a collective voice is essential to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss", but a collective voice is useless if it cannot find the right words. As long as we and influential organizations like the WWF in particular, do not use the word capitalism to indicate the main cause of mass extinction, we remain powerless and will not succeed in breaking its tragic story.
https://theconversation.com/capitalism-is-killing-the-worlds-wildlife-populations-not-humanity-106125
23 תגובות
Wow
It's amazing how a site that claims to be scientific has writers who simply have no idea what they're writing about
Nostradamus
You are absolutely right.
Man will not work without personal profit, without profit this is a recipe for laziness and decay and will lead to slavery, poverty, death and wars and great suffering as happened and is happening in all the crazy socialist countries. The experiment failed dozens of times.
"Stupidity is repeating the same action and each time expecting a different result"
Again the rant about the Scandinavian countries? This is the regular example of the NPC. These countries are not socialist, many billionaires live there, the market is free and they are much more capitalist than Israel and they are high in the index of economic freedom and ease of establishing businesses. They even mocked Bernie Sanders who gives them as an example of successful socialist countries. They are welfare states with high taxes and high services thanks to a homogeneous, hardworking, smart and productive white society, and this is also starting to change thanks to parasitic immigration. Socialism = the means of production in the hands of the government. There are no successful socialist countries! Forget it leftists, Wakanda is a legend.
Religion in its extreme form will not encourage science as capitalism does. She will encourage uncontrolled childbirth and inequality between people.
I am a person who believes, as is well known, but also in the complete separation of religion and state.
Anyway, capitalism is here. You have to see how you like it
Tom, read the history books
Avi is a religious person, with very strong religious beliefs.
Blasphemy and extreme religiosity are associated with nationalism and nationalism is now capitalism's number one ally. Therefore, the two cannot be separated.
Vigilance and extreme religiosity increase birth rates and reduce the use of effective technologies.
Economic capitalism besides the destruction of the planet also contains solutions. Therefore, there are 2 opposite processes here and the problem is open
Capitalism is mistakenly considered a system that promotes and glorifies the individual's right to freedom, fulfillment and happiness on the basis of competition. For quite some time it worked and indeed millions won the upgrade of their lives. On the other hand, the capitalist system has murderous viruses that promise disaster at the end of the road. First and foremost, greed. Capitalism legitimizes one of the most negative traits that exist in the human race that, by containing the loks in it, has made it legitimate, central and even desirable. The second virus is the pursuit of instant pleasure and gratification that feeds a violent consumer culture and the most difficult virus of all, the enrichment of a fraction of the population, which due to an obsessive, not to say psychotic, accumulation of resources dramatically changes the distribution of wealth and causes it to be transferred to a few hands. Most revolutions began with a cruel and unequal distribution of resources mainly due to the fact that a situation of extreme unfairness instinctively infuriates people, being contrary to the socializing impulse that is at the foundation of human society. Capitalism must die out and it looks like it will happen with a lot of blood.
And not a single word about a resource-based economy or approaches beyond socialism-capitalism. It's amazing how many people who consider themselves educated and enlightened reject everything that is unfamiliar to them even before they get to the bottom of an issue or try to test new approaches. Most of humanity is stuck in an endless thought loop and the question is whether it will overcome it before or after the collapse of the ecosystem.
It's a shame that even here it's impossible to have a serious discussion without fantasizing blocking the eyes of the debaters. Isn't "the culture of consumption (perhaps also screaming) responsible for a very large part of the environmental destruction?? Even if there are "socialist" countries (neither the USSR nor Venezuela and it's interesting how you forgot China!!!!!) like Denmark for example that will be found guilty of something, can they be compared to Trump's USA, etc. and if so how does this contradict the basic claim.
The requested solution is derived from a combination of several ideas, including:
1. Birth restriction
2. Improved transportation and agricultural and environmental infrastructure.
3. Improving education to high school graduation level for all mankind.
4. Building a health system and alongside it a "hunger prevention" system on the basis of worldwide cooperation in the style of the Johnson plan.
It is possible if you want to appropriate it to any financial basis you like.
Capitalism also results in a sharp decrease in the population, in capitalist countries the birth rate is much lower,
For example Japan
And it balances the consumption and utilization of natural resources.
Capitalism has failed to protect the environment and this is not just unfortunate, but because capitalists do not like to price the environmental cost. It's a built-in component. Look at what is happening now at the EPA in the USA, which has been completely manipulated in favor of the oil tycoons, who have lowered all the standards so that they can pollute the soil, water and air.
I don't understand why you have to make an ideology out of killing people who happen to live in the area (and in the case of global warming - all humans).
Come on, another socialist is fooling herself to know. After all, the Soviet Union did not destroy nature at all. And the Romans did not destroy nature in Israel at all... very interesting! If anything will save humanity it is capitalism, which will lead to economic and hence technological development that will save us (and nature) from ourselves.
Sounds like an ideological article rather than a scientific study, the mere hijacking of the subject to ideology takes an important subject
And harms our ability of different peoples and different ideologies to work together to solve the very difficult problems
of real destruction of nature,
These are not problems that belong to one type of ideology or one people, the destruction is a by-product of human success, both material and huge population growth, especially in developing countries
There is development in Africa, they are building roads, dams, etc... there is destruction of nature, this is true there and here in Israel
that you want to connect the south with the north with a quality road with fewer fatalities, 2 lanes in each direction with a safety fence
to prevent terrible accidents, but there is also greater damage to nature and this is all human construction, even solar cells that try to save the atmosphere occupy vast areas that are better fenced off than a military base and cause even greater damage than agriculture, most of which is open areas that allow the passage of animals from one area cell to another, the Vikings came to Iceland 40% was forested today only 4% remains probably also true for Ireland Scotland
This is true for many countries all over Europe and other countries long before anyone even heard of the word capitalism
In Israel and many countries around the world heavy damage has already developed thousands of years ago
The places where the damage is less were places that were left behind with the suffering and the poverty and the hunger and the diseases,
As soon as their situation improves, so does the damage they cause to the environment, these are the difficult problems we are waiting to solve and if ideologies everyone fortifies their position or does not feel that they have any contribution to the damage, why is it only the fault of the capitalists? The challah was also not dried by these capitalists by socialists who really believed they were doing good, but the result was not good,
Socialism is killing the human population
Capitalism bad communism/socialism good bring us money
Under socialism people starve, break into zoos and eat protected animals so as not to starve. Exactly what is happening now in Venezuela!
1. Capitalism is based on production, not consumption.
2. Capitalism is the only system that suits the nature of man, who is a rational creature that needs freedom to survive and thrive. Calling capitalism "irrational" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.
3. Capitalism is the only system in history that managed to get billions of people out of the cycle of poverty. In just the last 30 years, over two billion people in Asia have turned from poor to middle class thanks to capitalism. To claim that capitalism hurts the poor is simply abysmal stupidity.
4. Exalting the rich, those who have created more value in the world, is a cheap populist trick.
5. The demand for a "collective voice" at the end of the article reveals the Marxist concept behind this "research".
Regarding the matter in the same matter:
Under the auspices of the screams in all the media
who promote the dumb / dumb consumer "culture",
The world's (stupid) consumers bought unnecessary groceries for about 30 billion dollars,
$ 30.000.000.000
Now make an account:
How many trees can be planted?
How many rivers to clean?
How many wells can be dug in countries where there is no water?
How much food can be produced for the hungry?
How many solar panels for electricity production can be placed?
How many water desalination facilities can be established?
And so on and on, how much good could be done with the amount of the RM?
After all this it is worth calculating:
The amount of garbage produced by the purchased goods!
The amount of plastic that will pollute our environment!
All that remains to be said is:
"H L L L V Y H"
For "culture" the consumption...
Is this a real article or a parody? Capitalism is the system that in the last thirty years has lifted 3 billion people out of abject poverty and turned them into members of the middle class. The idea that capitalism hurts the poor is ridiculous. To say that capitalism is irrational, when it is the only method based on the recognition of man as a rational being who needs freedom to survive and prosper, is complete ignorance. This is very simply a Communist incitement article. No wonder he talks about a "collective voice" at the end.
OK
Then we will make a U-turn to socialism - perhaps similar to Soviet socialism until Gorbatsov. What's charming about socialism/communism, whatever, is that the environment has been kept in a good condition! No ecological disasters! How did we not think of this before?