arcadian sentimentalism

8/8/2019 Arcadian Sentimentalism

1/4

Toward a Self-Critical Environmentalism

Author(s): Martin W. LewisSource: Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Sep., 1999), pp. 229-231Published by: Association for Politics and the Life SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4236508

Accessed: 08/10/2010 17:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apls.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Politics and the Life Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Politics and the Life Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aplshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4236508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aplshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aplshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4236508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apls


2/4

Symposium: s HumanityDestinedto Self-Destruct?justice, then even if the future proves catastrophic, we will atleast have learned to meet it humanely.ReferencesBotkin,D. (1990). Discordant Harmonies. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.Caldwell, L.K.(1999). 'Is Humanity Destined to Self-Destruct?" Poli-

tics and The Life Sciences 18:3-14.Cronon,W.(1995). Uncommon Ground:Rethinking the Human Placein Nature. New York:Norton.

Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibilityon theLine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:Chicago University Press.Scott, J.C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes toImprovethe Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press.Weiss, T.G., ed. (1998). Beyond UN Subcontracting: Task-Sharingwith Regional Security Arrangements and Service-ProvidingNGOs. New York:St. Martin's Press.Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The Unityof Knowledge. New York:Knopf.

Toward a Self-Critical Environmentalism

Martin W. Lewis Duke University, USA

LyntonKeith Caldwell's warning?that humanity

must face the limits posed by "obdurate reality" if it isto avoid an ecological Armageddon?is a familiar if

not hackneyed feature of environmental discourse. Yet it re-tains its urgency. The utter failure of the U.S. government toconfront the perils of global climate change, and the seeminginability of the American public even to contemplate wean-ing our society from fossil fuel addiction, demonstrate thatthis message has not been broadly absorbed. Caldwell de-serves thanks for keeping the alarm bells ringing.

But despite the salience of Caldwell's message, a numberof his specific arguments are poorly founded. His overallposition, moreover, is weakened by a seeming unwillingnessto grapple with the criticisms of green political philosophythat have emerged over the past 20 years. If these criticismshave merit, then at least some of the blame for the public'sfailure to understand ecological limits lie within environ-mentalism itself?within a discourse that has proven

remarkably obdurate to evidence that contradicts its favoriteassumptions. In the spirit of constructive debate, I will there-fore limit my comments to these points of dissension.

Environmentalism comes in many variants, ranging fromthe atavistic "return to the Pleistocene" school to thehard-nosed camp of the environmental economists.Caldwell's position falls somewhere in the middle, near the"mainstream" of green philosophy. Yet this mainstream, de-spite its measured tones and appeals to science and reason,remains hobbled by several attitudes that it shares with thestrident eco-radical fringe. In particular, it discredits itselfby remaining beholden to Arcadian sentimentalism andapocalyptic prophesy, both of which subtly inform "Is Hu-manity Destined to Self-Destruct?"

Arcadian SentimentalismThe hallmark of Arcadian sentimentalism is the notion thathumanity has fallen from ecological grace; that in pre-technological (or, in some versions, pre-scientific or evenpre-agricultural) times people lived as one with the naturalworld. Only by regaining the mind-set of this lost world?ifnot the actual lifeways associated with it?can we save theearth and redeem our species.

Caldwell does not wholly endorse the Arcadian view,admitting that nontechnological societies occasionally"undermined their ecological support base" ( 1993:3). Yet heregards such disasters as strictly "localized," contendingthat humanity once maintained an "ancient covenant withnature" (1993:3). The evidence supporting this view, how-ever, is thin. A consensus is emerging that Homo sapienswas at least partly responsible for the global ecological holo-caust of Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. In the case of

Martin W. Lewis is Associate Research Professor of Geographyand Director of the Program in Comparative Area Studies at DukeUniversity. He has conducted extensive research on human-envi-ronmental relations in Southeast Asia, and is author of Wagering theLand: Ritual, Capital, and Environmental Degradation in the Cor-dillera of Northern Luzon (University of California Press, 1992). Hehas also worked on the politics and philosophy of modem environ-mentalism, writing Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critiqueof Radical Environmentalism (Duke University Press, 1992) andcoediting (with Paul Gross and Norman Levitt) The Flight from Sci-ence and Reason (New York Academy of Sciences, 1996). More re-cently he has been writing on the theoretical foundation of globalgeography, coauthoring (with Karen Wigen) The Myth of Conti-nents: A Critique of Metageography (University of CaliforniaPress) in 1997. Correspondence to: Department of ComparativeArea Studies, Box 90405, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708,USA (E-mail: [email protected]).

Politics and the Life Sciences September 1999 229


3/4

Symposium: s HumanityDestined to Self-Destruct?Madagascar and New Zealand, the evidence is over-whelming that the first human settlers wrought devasta-tion (Martin and Klein, 1984; Flannery, 1995; Diamond,1997). The extinctions that they caused (like those thatmodern humanity is now causing) did not result in a cas-cading ecological meltdown?nature is far too resilientfor that. But it was nonetheless a crime against nature. Theguilt of despoliation has been on our collective hands formillennia.

The notion of an "ancient covenant" anachronisticallyevaluates nontechnological peoples not on their own termsbut rather on ours (Krech, 1999). Scholars who have care-fully examined the evidence have shown that that some non-industrial peoples not only wasted natural resources, butwere at times almost pathologically destructive (Edgerton,1992; Krech, 1999; Whelan, 1999). If the global environ-ment remained relatively stable, it was because human num-bers were few and technologies limited?not because peoplehad any superior ecological sensibilities, much less an an-cient covenant.

Arcadian sentiments are also evident in Caldwell's viewson urbanism. His brief against large cities lies largely in therealm of human psychology; "pathological togetherness,"he contends, may well lead to "sociopsychological dysfunc-tion and violent crime" (1999:9). No evidence is offered toshow that large human agglomerations have any deleteriouseffects on the global environment. Nor are such anti-urbanarguments easily made. When people are concentrated inmega-cities, more land is made available for natural habitat.Equally significant, the ecological cost of transporting peo-ple and goods decreases as density increases (Lewis, 1992).Any form of decentralization?whether suburban sprawl,exurban creep, or rural intensification?in short, takes a sub-stantial environmental toll. Residents of large metropolitanareas in the United States, moreover, are far more willing tovote for environmental protection than are people in rural ar-eas (Lewis, 1992). Nor does life in large cities necessarilycause psychological damage. Murder rates in NorthCarolina's small cities, such as Fayetteville and RockyMount, are far higher than those of such massive metropoli-tan areas as Boston or San Francisco (Boyer and Savageau,1997:266-73); violent crime rates in the world's largestmegalopolis?Japan's Tokaido corridor?are a fraction ofthose found in the rural U.S. South.

Many environmentalists do not feel comfortable in theartificial environments of huge cities. But personal predilec-tions should not cloud careful analysis. Decentralizationconsumes habitat and?unless we are to return toautarky?demands massive infusions of energy. I see noreason to advocate it.

Apocalyptic ProphesyAs Matthew Buttsworth (1999) has brilliantly shown, greenphilosophy is thoroughly steeped in an ancient apocalyptic

tradition that can ultimately be traced back toZoroastrianism. Apocalyptic visionaries warn that total de-struction looms, but also that it may be averted?and a newpromised age realized?if society recants and mends itsways. Prophets of eco-apocalypse may valuably alert us toreal perils, but they also risk discrediting environmentalismby generating panic over insignificant issues. There is a dan-ger, in other words, in "crying wolf."

Caldwell does question eco-apocalypticism, but only in atrivial manner. Predictions of impending famine made in the1960s, he claims, may have erred by giving "faulty time-tables" (1999:5), but were nonetheless, by implication, sub-stantially correct. Elsewhere he falls into the apocalypticmode himself, contending, for example, that "the release ofsynthetic chemicals may threaten ... survival" (1999:8).

Synthetic chemicals no doubt pose serious environmentalproblems, but to contend that they possibly threaten survival(of humanity? of life itself?) is not justifiable. Overall, theevidence remains entirely mixed. The National ResearchCouncil has recently concluded that no proof exists for thethesis, advocated in Our Stolen Future, that reproduction isnow threatened by synthetic chemicals (Easterbrook, 1999).Debates over the mere existence of chemically imposed "en-vironmental illness" fill volumes and are far from decided(compare Miller and Ashford, 1997 with Barrett and Gotts,1998). Environmental scare campaigns against alar onapples and electromagnetic fields were almost certainly mis-guided. By jumping prematurely to dire conclusions whenno scientific consensus exists risks undermining the envi-ronmental message. It allows anti-environmentalists to ef-fectively discount genuine threats.

Nowhere have eco-apocalyptic warnings been so over-blown as on the issue of human population. Basic food stocksare actually more plentiful now than they were 40 years ago,as is reflected in the low international price of grain. Hundredsof millions of people remain hungry, of course, but such wantderives from political and economic factors, not a straining atthe margins of global carrying capacity (Sen, 1984; see alsoCohen, 1995). Humanity, moreover, is simply not showingthe "irreversible explosive growth" (1999:9) that Caldwellsees. The global fertility rate has actually declined so quicklythat demographers at the UN Population Division have had torevise their forecasts downwards three times in the past sixyears ("Survey of the 20th Century":6). Demographic stabili-zation is now in sight.

But this is not to suggest that population growth is not alegitimate environmental concern. Several densely popu-lated countries, such as Pakistan, still have high fertilityrates and may face demographic-ecological crises. More im-portant, the expected addition of another four billion personswill necessarily divert primary productivity from natural tohuman communities, thereby vastly diminishing nature.This is reason enough to do everything possible to hasten thereduction of fertility. Lester Brown's recommendations onthis score are entirely on target (Brown, Halweil, andGardner, 1999); his unsubstantiated, apocalyptic warnings

230 Politics and the Life Sciences September 1999


4/4

Symposium: s HumanityDestined to Self-Destruct?of impending food shortages, generated by such processes asChina's economic growth (Brown, 1995), only cloud the is-sue (see Paarlberg, 1996).

Nor have the dire warnings about the "consequences ofexponential growth of the human economy" been "authenti-cated" ( 1999:7). An ever-expanding economy would clearlybe an environmental impossibility if GNP were measured onthe basis of mass and energy consumed. But the size of theeconomy is actually defined on the basis of the total value ofgoods and services produced. If the information revolutionshows us anything, it is that through miniaturization,dematerialization, and increasing efficiency, economic growthcan continue without necessarily channeling ever more naturalresources into the human economy. The incessant writing ofever more code does not significantly diminish nature.

Again, this does not mean that economic expansion is nocause for environmental concern. Subsidies, habits, and theunwillingness of most economists and politicians to fullyfactor in negative environmental externalities ensure contin-ued devastation. Ironically, the computer revolution has ac-tually resulted in a massive increase in the use of paper. Butit need not; if paper were subject to appropriate green taxes,use would plummet. Eliminating newspapers, junk-mailings, and all the flotsam of trash paper with which wesurround ourselves would pay huge environmental divi-dends at a minimal economic cost.

The steady-state economy envisioned by green thinkersmay be an eventual necessity, as it is difficult to imagine howanything can expand forever. But economic stabilization is anissue for generations far into the future. At the present, only abriskly expanding economy?both for the United States andthe world as a whole?can alleviate poverty and generate thecapital required for the eventual creation of a post-fossil fuelsystem (on the mutuality of economic growth and environ-mental protection, see Hajer, 1995). Equally important, onlyunder conditions of "prosperity" will the public be willing topay the bill for enhanced environmental protection. Asteady-state economy, if implemented at the present, couldprove to be an ecological disaster.

Can Minds Adapt?Caldwell ultimately argues that the underdeveloped capac-ity of the human mind" ( 1999:12) prevents us from realizingthe severity of the impending ecological calamity, furthercontending that if only we could systematically apply reason( 1999:11 ), we would see the need for radical change. There ismuch to be said for this position. Yet I would insist that rea-son and science can cut both ways (see Gross, Levitt, andLewis, 1996), demonstrating that certain perceived environ-mental hazards are actually not significant. Much evidencesuggests that people systematically minimize risks derivedfrom their own conscious choices, while correspondingly ex-aggerating those?such as environmental cancerthreats?that are imposed by impersonal forces (Wildavsky,

1995; Margolis, 1997; Foreman, 1998; Lichter and Rothman,1999). The systematic application of reason does bolster thecentral thesis of environmentalism, but it also undercutsmany specific green arguments.

Caldwell's basic message is essentially unchanged fromthe one I received a quarter century ago as an undergraduatein the Environmental Studies Program at the University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz. It remains a powerful warning aboutthe hubris of modern humanity. But the kind of environmen-talism that it exemplifies will fail to garner widespread pubicsupport if it cannot adapt?if it proves unwilling to engagewith the constructive criticisms that have been leveledagainst the green orthodoxy over the past 20 years.

ReferencesBarrett,S.J. and R.E. Gotts (1998). Chemical Sensitivity: The Truthabout Environmental Illness. Buffalo, NY:Prometheus Books.Boyer, R. and D. Savageau (1997). Places Rated Almanac. Chicago:Rand McNally.Brown, L.R.(1995). Who WillFeed China? Wake-Up Call fora SmallPlanet. New York:W.W. Norton.Brown, L.R., B. Halweil, and G. Gardner (1999). Beyond Malthus:Nineteen Dimensions of Population Challenge. New York:W.W.NortonButtsworth, M. (1999). "Eden and the Fall: The Fallacies of RadicalEcological History." Ph.D. Dissertation, Murdoch University,Perth, Australia.Cohen, J.E. (1995). How Many People Can the EarthSupport? NewYork:W.W. Norton.Diamond, J.M. (1997). Guns, Germs, Steel: The Fate of Human Soci-eties. New York:W.W. Norton.Easterbrook, G. (1999). "Science Fiction." Review of Our Stolen Fu-ture, by T. Colborn, D. Dumanski, and J.P. Myers. The New Re-public (August 30):23.Edgerton, R.B. (1992). Sick Societies: Challenging the Mythof Primi-tive Harmony. New York:Free Press.Flannery, T.F. (1995). The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of

Australasian Lands and People. New York: Brazillier.Foreman, C.H. (1998). The Promise and Peril of Environmental Jus-tice. Washington, DC: The Bookings Institution.Gross, P.R., N. Levitt,and M.W.Lewis, eds. (1996). The FlightfromScience and Reason. New York:The New YorkAcademy of Sci-ence. Paperback, Baltimore,MD:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.Hajer,M.(1995). ThePolitics of EnvironmentalDiscourse: EcologicalModernization and the Policy Process. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Krech, S. (1999). The Ecological Indian:Mythand History.New York:W.W. Norton.Lewis, M.W.(1992). Green Delusions: An EnvironmentalistCritiqueofRadical Environmentalism.Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.Lichter,S.R. and S. Rothman (1999). Environmental Cancer: A Politi-cal Disease? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Margolis, H. (1997). Dealing w'tthRisk: Why the Public and the Ex-perts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press.Miller, C.S. and N.A. Ashford (1997). Chemical Exposures: LowLevels and High Stakes. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.Martin,P.S. and R.G. Klein, eds. (1984). Quaternary Extinctions: APrehistoric Revolution. Tucson, AZ: Universityof Arizona Press.Paarlberg, R. (1996). Review of Who WillFeed China: Wake-UpCallfora Small Planet, by Lester Brown. Foreign Affairs75 (3):127.Sen, A. (1984). Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement andDeprivation. New York:Oxford University Press."Surveyof the 20th Century" 1999). TheEconomist (September 11 .Wildavsky,A. (1995). But Is ItTrue?A Citizen's Guide to Environmen-tal Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Whelan, R. (1999). Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the NobleEco-Savage. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

Politics and the Life Sciences September 1999 231

arcadian sentimentalism

Documents