Ecology is complex relationships and interactions among and between members of a system(s), nested within additional ascending and descending complex hierarchal systems, whose structure and definition changes over time and space. This includes information ecosystems (networks, software, etc.), human ecosystems (social/economic/political), artificial intelligence, and other various intertwined systems whose mutual orientation creates either consensus (preservation or discordant (disintegration) within domains of interaction. The components are those individual actors within any given system - it could be a tree in a forest or a bug on a tree.
Consensus or discordance in this way is more like our interpretation of balance/imbalance. When we talk about pre-western indigenous cultures living in "balance" with nature, we are (supposedly) talking about consensus between co-evolving systems. I would posit that because pre-western indigenous cultures didn't possess the means to cause the systemic disruptions (discordance) between society and biotic ecosystem on the magnitude carried out by modern society (nuclear energy, industrialized agriculture, unplanned chemical interactions, etc.), in our retrospective analysis, we think of most of these cultures as being more in balance.
When we talk about consumption, industrial design, and greenhouse gases, we are talking about interactions. Consumption, for example, is the current orientation between the earths resources and humans, our modes of production, and our perceived political and cultural norms based on economies. Our views (utilitarians/conservationists/consumers/scientists/politicians, etc.) stem from our observations and perceptions (or lack, thereof) of co-evolving systems. In this co-evolution we are in a tug of war between 2 states - preservation or disintegration. When we talk about greenhouse gases, we are looking at matters of scale, whereas just enough of it is good (preservation), too much of it is bad (disintegration), and between these two is human conjecture, opinion, theory, etc. How we perceive these things, and the subsequent labels we give them, is based on how we perceive the interactions. Industrialism that employees thousands and has a minimal impact on the environment would be great, right?
Check out CO2 is Green, a website that offers its interpretation and understanding of carbon dioxide in the environment (stating that more of it is good, and by minimizing its import, we risk the lives of plants and humans). In the binary world most of us live in (republican/democrat, Christian/Muslim, conservative/liberal, etc.), many are prone to "taking a side," foregoing the subtleties and intricacies that make for informed decisions. And I believe we do this because there is so much ideology and emotionality attached to it that we feel obligated to maintain group thought, we "just believe it", or it's just downright angering and difficult to muddle through it. Therefore, are we kept from building a consensus (and becoming more sustainable) by way of this confusion? There is consensus regarding what sustainability is - that it is needed; that sustainability entails, to some extent, different ways of thinking and doing business; and that we are currently facing, in most cases, some bad fallout from not doing things differently. Therefore, is it safe to assume that a lack of consensus is one of the single biggest challenges to sustainability? And if the dominant paradigm that causes discordance within the earth system is disabling consensus by making websites like this, in order to sustain its own system, what role does it play in undermining sustainability? I wonder how many people, when they view this website, go and find out who is behind it?
The co-evolution of environmentalism along side industrialism has created discordance within society, a lack of consensus purposefully perpetuated so as to maintain the dominant polluting industrial paradigm. Here the consumer is cajoled by superficiality and removed from the process of disintegration (environmental destruction) by obfuscating the correlation between humanity and the environment. The manipulation of information and fragmentation of consensus works to break the collective goal of sustainability . Although many aspects of modern industrialism have provided for society, a reliance on the intensive, forced paradigms (industrial extraction, social/economic hierarchy, blindness to the interplay between humanity and the environment), will inextricably lead to our disintegration. Is our civic participation, intellectual investment, and collective "belief" interaction with the biotic community as potent a force as the chemicals, carbon dioxide, and pollution affecting the environment?
No comments:
Post a Comment