ࡱ> []Z'` PbjbjLULU 4d.?.?H....J, J$Vh555555v SG.d0 ,.>,5$+  $ ** On progress, genetic and cultural evolution, and environmental sustainability in civilisations.... Student questions Biology 510 November 2011 Should we as a society be expected to voluntarily decrease our quality of life substantially in order to prolong our societys existence? Is it worth it? If we help others (especially the disadvantaged), then wont they consume more too, exacerbating the ultimate problem? Can hope be channelled positively toward more sustainable living? There are fundamental natural selection pressures in the evolution of our species that have led to traits that may now be disadvantageous these are genetically driven. Could they be overcome by other genes (e.g. for intelligence), or be eliminated by selection itself? In understanding our past, we must take into consideration our evolutionary drives, many of which are the same today - to procreate, to strive for the most successful life based on relevant trends (peer pressure), to fulfill needs etc. But can we evolve fast enough so that our self satisfaction and fulfillment of our evolutionary drives is more heavily based on altruism than on selfishness? Evolution acts on one generation only there is no likelihood of longer-term traits (such as those related to perpetuating sustainable behaviour in future progeny) being selected for. We are descendents of those humans that consumed the most resources and were the best at exploiting the natural environment, not those who lived more sustainably. Does the human mind really prefer to distract itself from thinking about environmental issues? Is it not that most are just consumed with personal daily problems concerning family, career, relationships etc. so that world issues seem too distant to concern us? Part of the problem with democracy is that it can turn into a popularity contest in a largely uneducated public. I believe that many politicians base their campaigns on what people want to hear instead of what they need to hear. They centre their campaigns on hope and comfort because they know that will earn them votes. To inspire long-term thinking and to chart a sustainable future, I think campaigns should include some messages that convey urgency and fear to inspire personal responsibility among members of the public. Is it possible to foresake what we have come to value as human rights (freedom of choice) in order to control the number of human beings on the planet? Is there an ethical way to reduce our numbers so as to decrease the impacts of our species? Hardin in his paper The Tragedy of the Commons outlines plainly and clearly the reasons why people should not freely reproduce. But, is there any incentive large enough to make us abandon (or restrict) our biological instinct to reproduce? How would incentives or penalties to discourage human reproduction differ for the developed versus the developing world? Hardin states that For centuries, it was assumed without proof that guilt was.... valuable... indispensable... Now in the post-Freudian world, we doubt it. As the influence of culture increases, so does the malleability of the human conscience as it becomes based more on societal pressures and less on moral integrity and the persuasive powers of guilt. Then how, without using guilt, will we be able to drive our consciences in a more environmentally sustainable direction and then find personal satisfaction in our sustainability actions? Or is guilt just a driver of anxiety that needs to be restricted in order for us to act sustainably? Rees in his paper on Globalisation and Sustainability suggests that one of the drivers of humanitys collapse is our capacity for myth-making. He continues to add that lies are necessary. According to Jensen, For us to maintain our way of living, we must... tell lies to each other, and especially ourselves. Are lies really essential in order for humanity to continue living in todays world? Is our culture, including the idea of globalisation built from layers up layers of myths conjured up by previous generations to portray the vision of our continuous growth? Are we unable to accept the fact that we are just a selfish species living in a dying world? The Rees article interestingly touches on the argument of nature versus nurture. The fact that nurture plays a significant if not equal part in our functionality can offer hope, as it would mean that it is possible to change the course of civilisation. Whereas if we are driven entirely by our genetic predispositions which have essentially hard-wired us for destruction, then there would be little or no conceivable hope for change. If our culture (i.e. the nurtured characteristic) has not evolved by now to include the sense of awareness and improved perspective that are necessary for our species to continue, then is there any really chance that well be able to save ourselves in time? We do have more knowledge than ever before, and this will undoubtedly bring some change, but are our nature and nurture characteristics so connected that the negative compensation between them will force us to collapse as a global society yet again? In the Rees paper, it is said that we need to end the cycle of boom and bust (growth and collapse of human societies), as if it is an unnatural phenomenon that humans have created, and therefore have control over. However, cycles of population growth and collapse are seen throughout nature, and are part of an ecosystems natural cycles. An example commonly used is that of a rabbit population. When resources are abundant and readily available, the population increases rapidly in order to exploit those resources. Eventually, the population demand exceeds resource availability, causing the population to fall back to levels below carrying capacity. This cycle repeats unceasingly with all species on earth. Why should humans, just another animal species, be above this? In trying to prevent the collapse of our civilisation, are we not denying natural processes? The concept of patch disturbance in the Rees paper is really interesting. Unlike the other animals, we humans have disturbed a patch far greater than anything before. Part of this is because of population and urbanisation, but what part does globalisation have to play? How have we gone from concentrating ourselves in small civilisations to occupying and disturbing every corner of the globe? Is globalisation therefore not just a side effect of the continual growth of our species? If so, then curbing globalisation may not do anything positive for the environment, as instead of using resources that we trade to other countries, we will just use them ourselves. Considering that globalisation affects individual cultural identities (behaviours and beliefs), the potential for globalisation to be sustainable depends on whether we can spread an ethical concern for the environment. With globalisation comes a slow melding of cultures into one global culture. If environmental ethics are engrained in this developing global culture, then perhaps globalisation can be beneficial? However, if we are not able to drive positive environmental attitudes into the developing global culture, then globalisation is likely to particularly destructive. Chinas main problem of overpopulation that led to the implementation of the one child policy is now being experienced globally. This problem is a major cause of the exponential rate at which we are consuming global resources. Would it be acceptable for our officials to propose control policies to limit the number of children a family can raise? Is a violation of human rights justifiable knowing that it would lead to the betterment of the planet as a whole? I am very interested in the moral implications of Chinas one child policy. There seems to be an instinctive sense that implementation of policies around child-bearing have a profound effect on the the way we view our existence. When that much external control is placed on when and whether you have a child, it starts to seem less like a miracle as some would call it, and more like a pragmatic decision relating only to propagating ones genes. Putting this much control in the hands of a government makes me wonder even more about our purpose in life. If we are planned, and then accepted or rejected at birth, our existence can seem to lack any kind of grand meaning. What does the implementation of such policies say about our understanding of the concept of existence? The Catholic church has strongly opposed not only abortion but also any effective form of contraception even the simple condom. Islamic leaders have also roundly opposed family planning. In the future, could strides be made to show these organisations the necessity of human population control? If this was accomplished and devout believers adhered to the idea of population reduction, would this make a significant impact on the population problem? A barrier that prevents the inhabitants of a city from moving from interest to action toward sustainability is the idea that sustainable cities limit personal freedom, especially with regard to transportation. The article by Lester Brown suggests that cities should be redesigned to be local communities where people can walk and take public transportation wherever they need to go. As an inhabitant of a city, the idea is somewhat unappealing to me. The use of public transportation can be inconvenient, and walking as a primary method of transportation is not always my first choice. Do you think that to get people to move from interest to action toward sustainability, public attitudes toward personal freedoms need to be changed? Lester Brown refers to an innate human need for contact with nature, and uses terms such as biophilia and ecopsychology to explain the rationale. The types of technologies that are available to us today and the convenience that goes with them mean that we can easily spend the whole day indoors and not realize. Can this explain why happiness in our society is so short-lived? As a result, do we try to fill this void with meaningless activities like indoor entertainment, shopping, and television, when the true remedy is going outside and enjoying the beauty of Mother Nature? For most families today, the concept of sanitation is paramount. If society or a city were to adopt policies and regulations that would promote the use of self-treating toilets, how could it possibly convince its population to make the switch? There are people who already live in a way that reconnects them to nature, but in our culture they are referred to as hippies and are often not respected by those who prefer the corporate lifestyle and the American dream. How then could such people be convinced that this change is necessary? Could we target individuals to act sustainably by using certain aspects of human nature that are well understood? Maybe by pertaining to the genetic drive to propel ones genes into the next generation, by having people consider family well-being (e.g. how children are more important than cars, and therefore we need to revert from an automobile-centered-civilisation), people might be more likely to take action. Even more so than this, I think the power of social standards could be very useful in initiating action. By defining what is acceptable in society (and demonstrating positive results of changing to more sustainable behaviour), we may reform individuals behaviour. For example, we could pitch how other cities have been successfully able to reduce car use, and make it public knowledge that many others in your city share the same goal of environmental protection (meaning if you dont care, then youre and outcast). We could change perceptions so that biking rather than driving for example is the norm for those in relatively high social classes. Can our society change to more sustainable behaviour by targeting those human qualities of guilt,. cooperation and social status? In Ehrlichs article on cultural evolution and ethics, he states that [genes] appear to me to be too few, and too constrained by the delicate developmental processes they must help guide, to dictate the exact forms of behaviour we practice toward our environments or each other. This quote suggests that the way we view and treat our environment is mainly a result of our cultural rather than our genetic evolution. As such does this conclusion negate the previously discussed idea that we cannot appeal to conscience to restrict population growth because those who are most likely to be responsive (i.e. those that carry genes that render them more aware of our environmental impacts) will tend to prevent their genes from contributing to future generations. Can we not appeal to peoples consciences by encouraging environmental awareness to be passed on memetically to future generations? The worlds economy is one of the most significant issues that the human population faces today. The economic downturn has cost millions of people their jobs, and signs of economic recovery are few. However, it seems possible that our economy is simply another form of cultural evolution. Many aspects of the world economy seem unethical to the mainstream population. Today, millions around the world are rebelling against the greed of big corporations that allow company executives to make huge salaries while many in our civilisation struggle to survive. Can it be said that, in contrast to the assumption that genetic evolution (favouring individual growth and competition) has been the major factor, cultural evolution has in fact been the main force driving us toward our seemingly unethical economy? While its one thing to care about the environment, and have feelings of guilt or pride for each of our behaviours depending on its impact on the environment, is it also considered an issue of ethics to share those feelings? Should we not also feel guilty when others act unsustainably? Should we not have ethics to change the behaviour of others for the better? Whose responsibility is it to propel environmental ethics? Scientists? In our western culture, the structure of social hierarchies is important, with governments implementing rules and police officers enforcing them. Is it our cultural norm to assume that it is the governments responsibility to make change? Can we change our culture to believe that the individuals are empowered? Suzukis book acknowledges that unrestricted growth is one of the factors that has led to our current state of strained ecosystems and economies, and therefore encourages businesses to downsize (-echoing Schumachers economic concept of Small is beautiful). However, the world population is growing, and will continue to grow for some time yet. Will this new business practice of decreased size be helpful to all of the new people who are now on this Earth since the book was written? Or does this eventually lead to larger numbers of unemployed people, which has disastrous effects on the economy and social well-being? Cooperatives could be the answer to part of our sustainability problem. Many of todays cooperatives are manufacture or service-based. At the same time, to people in our situations as university students, emphasis seems to be placed on getting higher education and entering a world where we are essentially above manufacturer and most service-based jobs. Do we need to abandon the notion that higher level education means one is above labour and production? If more people were willing to use their education to form cooperatives or to understand the value of labouring to produce goods that benefit the community, we could create a workforce that is energised and committed to cooperatives. We face having to redefine what wealth means; and that also entails redefining the whole idea of human happiness. (Suzuki). To achieve cooperation, we need to find peace and trust in others and ourselves; and this is largely based on the perceptions we hold. In order to move toward more sustainable cooperative living on Earth, do we first need to cooperate with each other in order to initiate a change in our perception of human happiness, or do we first need to find a way to change our perception of happiness and our priorities (needs versus wants)? Do we necessarily want to move beyond competition? Could we not utilise the advantages of competition and cooperation in varying aspects of global change? For instance, if all countries (and all individuals within those countries) could cooperate toward a common goal, yet there was competition to see who was better at reaching that goal, then we could use competition to potentially reach environmental sustainability faster. There are advantages to having competitiveness as a human trait we just need to change what were competing for. The Pimental paper suggests that one way to increase cropland productivity is to use energy-intensive farming (using more fertilisers and pesticides). however, this type of farming is dependent on non-renewable resources: fossil fuels, phosphorus, and the use of pesticides that will only exacerbate our existing problems. How can this be a real solution to the problem, when it is obvious that these measures will only worsen the current conditions that we find ourselves in, as well as being unsustainable in the long term? When considering whether we should or should not take steps to ensure that the entire world is fed, many would argue that it would be beneficial to the human race and the planet if much of the populations that experience famine were left to die off. However, even though their numbers are substantial, if such a policy were to be enacted, the populations who would die of starvation may not impact global food production requirements as much as initially thought because their current consumption per capita is extremely low. It would be fairer for a change in policy toward feeding the world to restrict the actions of those who over-indulge and eat far more than their share. These same people whose habits often lead to heart disease and other nutrition-related diseases are costing billions in healthcare. All this is not to say that these people do not deserve to live. It is to express my feelings that the people who would suffer most if we were to cease our efforts to feed the world are those who are not at fault. And therein lies an enormous moral dilemma for me.  ,^bc } ! $ *J %+op9>=RSXzX"Y"ɹɵɵ͵ѵ͵ѵѱѭѩhfhQhi+hJ7hH'hH'>*h [h`hH'h > >!>E>J>\>>>?+?@@AAASCsCtCuCvC0F1F2FFFHF_F`FvFwFFF:GGGGhVhR@QhuhRChCahm.h- h>Zvh [hd`h rh#hghfOS+6.7.8.~000222[7\7]7:: > > >@AAtCuCvCgdugdCagdm.gd- gd>Zvgdd` & F hh^hgd#vC1F2F3FhHiHjHJJJLLLPP & F hh^hgd@gdF & F hh^hgdFgdVgdCa & F hh^hgdVGG HH:HOHVHWHeHhHiHjHHHJ|LLLONnNOPPPhJ7h|h?[h@huhu>*uC.F鰪21h:2>3>h@i@j@BBBDDDHH000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 00 0 00 0 000 0 00 0 000 0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00c,-.H000 000 00Y"GP).1 S+vCP*,-/0P+U<$V<WX"HHB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace f8Q^  # !MZly<Ikx@C{""&&&& ,,-(-F-O-/ /80A02244]5f5u66V7_7-=3===>>@̬B5!!9/;/V,|#H'i+m.RCR@Q [?`Ca7gm r>ZvOn progress and environmental sustainability in civilisations Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012456789:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQSTUVWXY\Root Entry FL^Data 31Table;WordDocument4dSummaryInformation(JDocumentSummaryInformation8RCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q