PART II - Dr. Gordon F. Hartman's article discussing results of the, " endless parade of growth-driven building and ‘development’ projects."

Continuing...

TO THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS – CHALLENGE THE GROWTH ETHIC

It is the reality of our times that we must question not only the specifics of each resource use issue and each "development" issue of our time, but also the societal context in which it occurs. Over the past 30 years or more, I have witnessed cases in which people, who were concerned about the environment, questioned or opposed activities that ranged from small to large, and from moderate to heavy in impact.

We have not, however, questioned well the direction or the "end game" along which each step in the growth/development process takes us further. The numbers should wake us up. The UN medium growth projection has human numbers peaking at about 9.3 billion – 3 billion more than now. The US growth projection is for about 420 million by 2050. The Canadian projection is for about 42 million. Based on growth rate from 1950 to 2000, B.C. will have a population of 8 million or more.

The question that we "environmentalists" must ask in regard to these kinds of trends is, "Where does the process take us?" Do we wait, passively, until the growth process takes the planet to the 9 billion plus mark? Do we grow until nature says "Stop," as it surely will, or do we begin an active discussion of the processes that envelope us? These are the issues. These are the questions that should be asked in every political campaign in which our “leaders", perhaps in ignorance, take us one increment further along the road to greater environmental risks.

Such questions and issues must begin to be part of every discussion and every hearing as additional "development" projects come before society. The fact that project review formats and terms of reference may not openly permit such discussion, in this day and age, can only serve to emphasize their ultimate limitations.

REACHING FOR A HIGHER RUNG ON THE LADDER

To a large degree it is the political process that reflects the direction of a society. In a deeper sense this process reflects our relationship to our environment and to nature. The political discussion that we have heard is one in which the core of the debate is about the "individual" as opposed to the "collective". As such, these two perspectives are both about how we use the planet and about how nature may serve our species. It is in this context that we presently try to "write the rules." A look at the conditions around us tell us that now such "rules" of societal operation are short-sighted. Too many people in our society live with their eyes on the stock market and their hands on their wallets. The environment is an abstraction "somewhere outside."

My sense of the situation is that we are at a "break-point" at which the "political" context must also reflect rules of nature that are common to all species. Such a transition would reflect intellectual process as much as political doctrine. It would reflect, in the fullest sense, that we cannot "grow forever." It would also reflect that "all things are interconnected in nature." The Nuu–Chah-Nulth people on the west coast of Vancouver Island embraced this concept long ago in their expression, “hishuk ish ts’awalk.”

Historically, people have made positive transitional leaps in regard to some things in society, in particular, how they should operate and govern themselves. I think that we are due for another step. I believe that it is time that we recognized nature as a partner and a regulator rather than as a servant and a collection of resources. This idea is an abstraction on one hand, but a powerful reality on the other. In its fullest sense, the concept has no home in any present political organization. It is a concept based on perceived relationships rather than how we gain and own material wealth. As such it may be elusive, and making it work would require new dimensions to our thinking and social depth.

However, the consequences of failure to reach for and attain it, because we opt for "business as usual", may be disruptive and dangerous.

My last hope is that it is not already too late.


G. F. Hartman, Ph.D.

Link: http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/755-growth-time-to-remove-its-halo-gordon-hartman