Environmental Imperialism – Matthew Angelo

In the past 500 years, countries of the West have exploited the peoples and the places of the rest of the world to an unprecedented degree. The overwhelming majority of resources used by the wealthiest nations today originate outside of those nation’s borders.  This misappropriation puts a strain on the regular interactions between people and the environment in these areas. Not only has a small portion of the world’s population benefited at the expense of the majority, but it also has spread its environmentally debasing ideals to the mindset of those subjugated to its elitist notions of progress. Although direct rule over nations by Western powers has largely come to an end, the exporting of its views has obscured the reality that regions that have been abused adopt an exploitative culture’s outlook. The exportation of values conveyed translates into acts that use one’s environment as a means instead of as an extension of one’s self and one’s place of residence. Environmental degradation within developing nations benefits the West while being unwittingly supported by the residents of these nations.

            The Industrial Revolution, the precursor of the intensified use of the world’s natural resources, advanced Western culture in many beneficial ways, (such as developing vaccines for diseases, making clothing and shelter more readily available etc…) at the cost of higher need for labor and for material from the environment. The development of these societies of European origin followed the patterns of progression taken by those common to their predecessors; the acquisition of wealth through and because of their ever-present neighbors. Historically, Western societies have had to compete to survive to a greater degree than most other societies, whether through petty wars over territory, or the capacity to obtain resources, or the ability to colonize other parts of the world. This elevation of competition, while useful in contributing to the advancement of some of the aspects of life mentioned above, tends to make people think in terms of what is beneficial to the individual rather than what is beneficial to the whole. Holistic ideals are often counter to those of Western thinking because of this disregard for that which does not affect one’s immediate concern. Intensive competition is also most often unstable (as the relatively quick fall of many Western empires; British, Spanish, Germanic, will attest to) because it creates a cycle where those who have lost need to compete once again in order to reestablish themselves.

 

            At present there are many societies which attain their goals and needs through the exploitation of other societies. While governments themselves generally no longer run programs to take advantage of undeveloped nations, multinational corporations, which are often more powerful than these nations, use them to create wealth for themselves and for people of developed areas. This exploitation frequently takes the form of using a culture’s land to generate goods while degrading that society’s environment. Places such as
Brazil where a large part of the
United States’ beef comes from, or the creation of factories in
Southeast Asia, destroy biologically diverse regions with the intent of using the areas to produce whatever is profitable for these companies. The imperialistic actions of those who use developing nations to their advantage is frequently rationalized by corporations through an ethic that claims they are beneficial to the local people because they’ve created jobs whereas otherwise they would have no money and be destitute. However, it is only because of these corporations that the peoples of these areas need jobs in the first place, as they’ve taken their lands through bargaining with local governments and with it the locals’ abilities to maintain their traditional life. The fact that large multinational corporations are able to gain sympathy through their exploitative actions is appalling.

            The eco-exploitation of the regions of the world where land and labor are cheap is not only morally atrocious, it is generally a highly unsustainable practice. Sustainability, a current goal of ecology, is affected by a delicate balance of a number of factors such as the economy, the environment, and people, and how nations maintain societal harmony while considering the interaction of these factors. There are few societies that maintain sustainable lifestyles, such as
Cuba, Amish communities, and a few others, but the vast majority of today’s industrial world is grossly unsustainable. It would take something like an additional three Earths to achieve the living standard for the entire world that the
United States,
Japan, and other Western nations have set for themselves. This is often mentioned in ecological studies, but perhaps what they don’t mention is that these three additional planets would be populated by our slaves and our environmentally destructive technology. Such a statement would be useful in making people consider changing attitudes instead of just policies.

            The interactions between people, the environment, and the economy, when calculated together, can indicate how sustainable our practices are. The utilization of food, water, nonrenewable energy sources, and land area per person gives an idea of the imbalance created by the way we live. Water needs, as an example, is expected to cause devastating shortages with the growing population in the next century. If fresh water was distributed equally, there would be much less cause for concern, however the distribution of water is so unequal that many countries will suffer from its debilitating scarcity within the next twenty years. The necessity of water to life, and its current inequity, highlights the relationship between eco-imperialist countries and those they abuse. The unsound premises on which our civilization is built may affect us in the future, but it is affecting those outside of it as we speak. It is of little wonder why there are different positions on how to deal with present environmental crises.

            While many people in industrialized nations today acknowledge the need for changes in how we deal with our environment, the conscious attitudes in still developing countries are often considerably different. It is not hard to see why such societies would view the environment dissimilarly; they have not gained anything from the massive utilization of the environment in centuries past, and in fact have been witness to those that have. The industrialized world has in large part come to modernization because of it use of the environment not only in its own regions but also in undeveloped regions; it would be ludicrous to believe that the people of these regions would not want the same benefits. The willingness of people of a given society to sacrifice for the good of the natural world generally goes up in accordance to how much they are gaining from the natural world. The West is now being put to the standards of its own capitalistic ethic; for the use and degradation of the environment it has paid nothing; reimbursement to those who it has taken from should be implemented.

           

The fact that only a small part of the world has benefited from the deterioration of our planet, however, has made reimbursement in the way of equal opportunity for its exploitation impossible. The Western view of the environment as something separate from people is now shared by many across the globe. This is perhaps more dangerous than its policies in putting into practice those values in the first place. The dichotomous aspects present in Western Judeo-Christian religions has not helped the influence of these values. In such aspects, man is separate from the environment; he is made from clay but in God’s image, and all of creation is made for him. Although much of the industrialized world has moved on from devotedly practicing religious values, these values in ages past have done nothing to preserve respect for one’s environment, and in fact advocated the use of it. In the modern world, a reassessment of values and attitudes towards reverence for the natural world is a major part of what is needed.

            One step towards lessening the pressure of creating environmentally friendly policies in the developing world could be through debt forgiveness. An imposing obstacle that keeps many “third world” nations from rising their standards of living, and therefore their environmental attitudes, is the massive amount of debt they accumulate owed to “first world” nations. The first world, which essentially imports their sustainability from the third world, not only directly but indirectly is causing environmental damage by increasing the speed at which the third world uses these degrading practices to keep up with the rising debt and interest it accumulates. This not to say that current policies which alleviate debt with the intention that it can be traded for the ability to maintain environmentally polluting practices, rather the forgiveness of debt on a broad scale should be an end in itself. Debt forgiveness should be justified through the fact that poor nations owing anything in the first place to rich nations is a bit ridiculous, as rich industrialized nations would owe insurmountable sums if its use of common environmental resources in the past were taken into account. It would perhaps be the start of a change in outlook in regarding one’s environment.

            The existing idea about environmental consciousness is that one has to give things up in order to satisfy a larger goal from which they get nothing in return. However, if people examine their lives and find what is actually raising their quality of life, simplifying their lives probably wouldn’t seem like much of a sacrifice, but instead as its enrichment. Poverty, which is involuntary, as it is in much of the third world, creates a sense of passivity, while voluntary simplicity is empowering. This is certainly supported by many economical studies of welfare, as the poor not receiving aid tend to remain impoverished, while those receiving welfare more often go back to work. Living simply does not necessarily imply rural living, and has a sublime sense of harmony with the environment in adopting sources of renewable energy and combining function with beauty. These goals are achievable by taking the tools we already have, such as mass media, education, and new technologies, and applying them to a responsible ecology.

            Those who resist the changing of environmental policy are normally only those who have something to lose from it. If it could be realized in actuality that only those who have something to lose from it are people like those in our current presidential administration, where any ecological progress seems to have hit an eight-year road block, there would generally be more effort expended towards the matter. This does require all individuals to take action in their lives however, as our inaction reverberates in our leadership, and not using it to our advantage as a species as a whole allows them to use it for theirs. Let it be known that harming the environment is harming ourselves, not just first world nations, not just developing nations, not just the middle class, not just the poor; if you are present in the natural world, you are a part of it.

Advertisement