Translated material
Ecological Malthusianism
One planet is not enough for humanity even with the greenest lifestyle
On the website of a large European energy corporation, in a section called “Sustainable Energy,” the World Wildlife Fund posted an interesting test. The visitor is asked to calculate the impact that his life has on the environment. You answer a dozen questions and get the result. And you immediately understand how harmful you, as a modern resident of a big or small city, are to the ecology of the Earth.The questions are relatively simple: what kind of transport do you use to get to work, do you buy goods made on other continents, do you live in an apartment or in your own house, do you prefer to shower or take a bath. The only issue that may cause some difficulty is the question of what energy source your heating operates on. Still, usually a Russian city dweller is not very interested in what the neighboring combined heat and power plant or boiler house burns - gas, fuel oil or coal. However, this is not difficult to find out without leaving the computer.
After passing this test, I received the answer that if all 6 billion people lived the same way as me, we would need two planets like Earth. And this despite the fact that I give very “green” answers to many of the questions - for example, I don’t drive a car to work and thereby make an almost minimal contribution to the destruction of fossil fuels and the worsening of the greenhouse effect. It would be possible to walk, but this is not for metropolitan distances. And since two Earths were not allocated for one humanity, I was upset at my wasteful use of environmental resources. But after several experiments with the WWF test, it became clear that in terms of a “green” lifestyle, I am probably on the list of the most responsible and sensible consumers.
It is not that difficult to ensure that your life, in terms of 6 billion people, would require four terrestrial planets. You declare that you heat with electricity, take a bath rather than an economical shower, go to work in your own SUV, prefer to spend your holidays in distant warm lands and fly there, of course, by plane, like to heat the air in your house to 23 degrees in winter, and you get those same four Earths. You can try to build an image of a hypothetical “green” life - no personal car, work on foot or by bicycle, use renewable energy sources, buy only goods made on your continent, go on vacation no further than to a neighboring country and preferably to train. But again, we get those same two Earths that we still don’t have in stock.
What the compilers wanted to say with this test is clear. The lifestyle of modern man is too luxurious. The average consumer in developed countries spends a huge amount of energy on heating, lighting, travel and other household needs. And if all people on Earth lived this way, humanity would have serious problems. According to ecologists, we would not have enough planet. Therefore, they say, a responsible consumer should limit himself and not spend more energy than necessary.
But the effect of this test is the opposite. After all, no matter how you look at it, no matter how much you select the parameters, no matter how hard you try to mark the most “green” options, you can’t get less than two planets in the results. And then it turns out that the current lifestyle of the countries of the “golden billion” or those close to them is fundamentally anti-ecological. It’s not that we have too costly bad habits that need to be abandoned, the point is different: the whole basis of our life is not designed for the real possibilities of the Earth. And then what is the benefit of a person replacing his SUV with a small city car or even giving up his personal car and starting to use public transport? How will nature be helped in principle if the consumer suddenly declares war on globalization and stops buying goods made by cheap labor in distant countries? And will a particular consumer's refusal to vacation on tropical islands save the environment? Neither we, nor people in Western countries, nor the middle class of third world countries - none of those who enjoy the benefits of civilization - fit into the “GTO standards” established by nature and its guardians.
There is no point in arguing that, from an environmental point of view, we live beyond our means: yes, we really spend more than we have, we borrow from nature without hope of quickly repaying our debts. But there is no way out of this credit trap in sight. The possibility of returning people to the way of life that existed before the industrial revolution cannot be seriously considered. Humanity is structured in such a way that without a global catastrophe it will not return to a natural economy without electricity and internal combustion engines. Educational and educational measures also have their limits: they will not be able to completely overcome a person’s healthy or unhealthy selfishness and his desire for a good and comfortable life.
It is believed that it is not difficult to persuade people to share too much, especially if you give them a sense of moral righteousness in return. Thus, many willingly give alms when they understand that this is recognized by society as a good deed. But most people are not able to give away what is considered essential, no matter what ethical indulgences you promise them for it. It seems that even the most green-minded consumers will not cut the wires supplying power to their household appliances or block the heating pipes when it is cold outside. Because hand washing is no longer the norm, but rural exoticism like chopping wood or digging beds, and the need to sit at home in a sheepskin coat is considered an emergency. And when a respected environmental organization popularly explains to people, using a simple test, that even the utmost modesty of everyday habits will still require at least one more Earth, the desire to follow “green” standards is completely discouraged.
And since humanity, apparently, will not be able to change its way of life at the moment, the consumer of the “golden billion” can only do his best to maintain the energy-intensive status quo. That is, to ensure that, God forbid, all 6 billion people do not start living like a representative of the middle class in a developed country. Otherwise, if ecologists turn out to be right, then a second planet will really be needed, and one is not observed in the vicinity of the Sun. And such a point of view inevitably leads to an environmental war - cold or active - for the right to natural resources.
But war in the full sense of the word is still a hypothetical matter in this case. Although experts have been warning for several years that, say, they will soon begin to fight over the distribution of water resources in the same way as they are now fighting over hydrocarbons. This turns out to be “green Malthusianism” in its primitive understanding. Well, then, since there is not enough nature for everyone, it means that those who are stronger will take according to their needs, and let the rest live where grass does not grow.
The classic Malthusian problem, often reduced to the fact that there is not enough food and other resources for all people, was tried to be solved with the help of science and technology. They increased agricultural productivity, created an industrial civilization, etc. It partially helped, but after several centuries humanity ran into the second - “post-Malthusian” - dead end. It turned out that this development path is strictly limited by natural resources. And no one can really suggest how to get out of this back street. Suggestions to consume less do not seem to help. Just as in the times of classical Malthusianism, calls for those who had enough bread and circuses to limit themselves in food and entertainment would not have helped.