The environment, economy, and where we went wrong
How can we keep the economy running while the environment aches under its weight?
After supply chain issues, the economy seems to run short on resources again. This time it’s gas, or wheat, or… You name it. Artificially, some might say, but it’s nonetheless a reminder for our dependence on natural resources.
In the meantime deforestation, overconsumption and waste management remain huge problems. How can we struggle to keep the economy running, yet already exploit nature to this extend? Where did we go wrong?
A shifted perception of nature
For most of history, the environment of us humans has been nature.
While it’s the foundation of many cultures, we now tend to think of nature as seperate from society. This also explains how it came to this definition of “nature”, which Google showed me:
“the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.”
Wait, nature is “opposed” to humans?
Connecting this social shift in perception to economy, it is resembled in the growing trend of Luxury. Ever since the early 18. century, the GDP continues to rise and our direct surroundings have become increasingly abstracted away from nature.
Don’t get me wrong. Growing global wealth is great. What’s problematic is how we spend that extra money.
In the consumerist society that we live in, the comfort of concrete walls replaced nature as our environment. And even more than that: The country, city and street you live in suddenly are means of self-definition and self-portrayal.
Remember Maslow’s Pyramid? You know, the one with basic needs (physiological, safety) at the bottom, and belonging, esteem and self-actualization at the top.
Instead of only providing basic needs, the environment you (more or less) choose to live in now effects esteem needs and self actualisation. This leaves us hyper-focused on ourselves and our new, immediate environment.
Where we went wrong
This is the path economy has paved. We pursue personal goals while the “real” environment - nature - is overlooked.
The problem lies within the metric of our economy: growth.
Simply put, the economic system doesn’t represent the systemic importance of nature. Cutting down trees is often more lucrative than planting them. This is a crucial factor because it’s the origin of practically all economic resources.
Connecting the dots, there seems to be tension between the cultural, economic and ecological perception of environment. Culture tells you to pursue personal desires, which requires a healthy economy, which requires a healthy ecological system.
Shouldn’t protecting nature then be in the economy’s best interest? This is where we went wrong.
We went wrong thinking that a system which requires constant growth can be unified with the conscious use of resources.
Namely there is one big problem hidden within the idea of growth: It isn’t about providing products to consumers.
Rather it’s about increasingly producing more in order to keep employment and spending power high.
That means we end up with a mountain of products that nobody really needs. Production for the sake of growth, not demand. The only thing that benefits from this cycle is the GDP.
In the end, it’s a lose-lose situation for the individual and for nature.
Companies manipulate you in desiring those extra products, and you believe them.
They’ll try their best in convincing us that the new iPhone is “green” and that electric cars will save the climate, so you don’t have to feel guilty.
In reality, you just have to face the fact that the standard of living we’re used to comes with a cost. The question I’ll leave you with: who will pay up in the end?