Why We Should Stop Trying to Save the Planet

Because yesterday was Earth Day, I feel compelled to write about some of my thoughts on “environmentalism” and what we can do to reverse some of the dangerous and detrimental environmental trends we have been witnessing in recent years (and likely will continue to witness in coming years).

I am not going to write some doomsday, apocalyptic post about how bad things are for us humans right now – although there is ample research out there that would enable me to do so fairly easily. Instead, I would like to talk about meaningful solutions to our environmental challenges. Or, more exactly, I would like to talk about the prerequisites to achieving lasting and meaningful solutions to our environmental challenges.

Using less, recycling more, and supporting local environmentalists’ efforts to protect our waters and air are certainly noble, virtuous, and “environmentally friendly” actions. But, alone, they are not enough to steer the humanity train back onto a sustainable track. Similarly, on their own, lending our efforts and monies to large-scale environmental campaigns or organizations will also fail to solve the environmental problems we’re facing. What has been missing in our efforts to address the environmental challenges we are facing is a much-needed change in our thinking. Specifically, we need to change the way we perceive environmentalism, human beings, and the planet.

A lot of our understanding of environmentalism was formed around the time of the first Earth Day in the 1970’s. During this time, environmental activists harnessed some of the momentum from the civil rights movement in order to usher in the environmental movement and the first wave of major, heavy-hitting, federal environmental laws – the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Until these first major statutes, resource exploitation went largely unchecked (aside from when it violated the prior wave of smaller preservationist and conservationist statutes) and polluted air and water were a sign of a booming and successful nation.

While these federal environmental statutes of the 70’s were a great starting point, these days, they are no longer quite as helpful. For one, the major environmental protection statutes are based upon assumptions regarding the way the world works – ways that scientists have long since disproven. For example, our major environmental statutes analyze the planet’s features in a vacuum. The Clean Air Act mandates that certain sources keep their air pollution levels below certain standards in order to protect the human environment. However, you cannot separate the air from the water, the land, the ocean, etc. and expect to accurately assess the true impact of any activity. The Endangered Species Act fails similarly. This statute has been selectively enforced and we, humans, are more prone to go to greater lengths to preserve species we find to be cute (i.e., a charismatic species like the polar bear or red wolf) rather than a species that may be absolutely crucial for the functioning of an entire ecosystem (i.e., keystone species, which might take the form of an unappealing poisonous insect).

But, what concerns me the most about our environmental statutes is that they have perpetuated a myth about the earth, “nature,” and human beings that is not only entirely false, but also quite dangerous. Most all of our environmental laws are based upon the assumption that humans are separate from and threatening to “nature.” For instance, in just looking at the title – the Endangered Species Act – it is clear who is the villain and who is the victim. Earlier environmental statutes reflect similar beliefs. For example, statutes designed to promote conservation of so-called wilderness spaces are premised on the assumption that humans are separate from “nature” and that “nature,” to be protected, needs to be quarantined from us rotten humans.

We have created “wilderness spaces” so that there are places safe from human interference. Leaving aside the fact that there is literally no place on earth where human activity has posed no interference (regardless of whether we’ve physically been there or not), the idea behind establishing wilderness areas is that parts of the planet need protecting from human activity – to be kept in their pristine, unadulterated states. Essentially, the whole idea of wilderness is premised on the beliefs that humans are corrupt and nature needs protecting.

Major environmental campaigns perpetuate similar ideas. For example, yesterday, on Earth Day 2017, my Facebook newsfeed was populated with countless posts advocating for “saving Mother Earth” or “saving the environment / planet.” It’s not that these ideas or slogans are rooted in bad intentions. It’s that they perpetuate the myth that humans are distinct entities from the planet and that we are capable of both harming and saving the planet when the fact is that neither of these ideas is true.

Let me explain. Western thought is rooted in the idea of dichotomies. Typically, dichotomies are unhelpful – the gender fluidity movement appreciates this fact. Things are never black and white and either/or. Life is far more complex and reality tends to support the idea of continuums rather than polar opposites. One of the most entrenched dichotomies, one that runs rampant within our environmental movements, is the idea that humans are separate from nature. We define nature as that which excludes human interference or that which is other than human. Ample scientific evidence and just a little thoughtful reflection shed light on why this is a bit of a preposterous idea. We are made from the material of the planet, we share a huge chunk of our DNA with the starfish, we, humans, are carbon-based units generated from planetary and cosmic materials. Being simply a manifestation of the Earth’s current planetary iteration (i.e., we are made from it, live upon it, and return to it), we are the furthest things from “unnatural.” There is nothing more natural than a human being.

I would argue that our activities are also “natural.” When we are asked to identify what is natural, most of us will point to open spaces, trails in the wilderness, rivers, streams, etc. In other words, we’ll point to places and things that humans seemingly have not touched and that do not involve human activity. However, if humans are natural and we use planetary resources to create everything we create and do, how is it that human activity or human creation can be understood to be unnatural? It makes no sense. There is no such thing as unnatural. The stories we tell ourselves otherwise are about as credible as fairytales. We are nature. Our creations are nature. And there is no separation between humans and nature.

The delusional dichotomy of humans vs. nature has spawned even more delusional thinking. One example of this relates to power. The modern environmental movement is rooted in the idea that humans are more powerful than “nature.” This idea is evidenced in environmental campaigns that call upon humans to be “stewards” or protectors of the planet and the environment. This is a somewhat silly idea when you really think about it. We humans are not nearly so powerful or significant that we could ever realistically assume the role of caretaker of the planet – especially given the fact that we are dependent upon the planet. We are at the mercy of the earth, not the other way around. Believing otherwise reinforces false ideas regarding the extent to which we have control over the planet and it infantilizes the most powerful thing in our lives – the forces and rules that govern planetary function and operation and, consequently, us.

Many environmental campaigns also fall short by anthropomorphizing the planet and the environment. I cringe when I hear earth referred to as Mother Earth or when I see a campaign suggesting that the planet has become sad as a result of human activity. I don’t really think that our planet is a woman, first of all. And I most certainly don’t think the planet is bummed out about the fact that we are currently manipulating conditions. The planet is approximately one gagillion years old (rough estimate). It has been home to wooly mammoths, dinosaurs, creepy fifty-foot long fish monsters, etc. The planet has persisted in a variety of conditions and, at various points in time, noxious atmospheres filled the skies and lethal acids made up the seas. To me, this suggests that the planet does not have a preference for the conditions suitable to human life. I think we just happen to have lucked out and came into being at a time when the conditions on earth permitted it. But, if the planet exists in a state where it is home to primarily bacteria and cockroaches instead of smiling, happy people, the planet is probably fine. It reflects extreme hubris to believe that the planet is the suffering and imperiled party, if we humans denigrate the conditions we need for our survival.

So, if the planet is not in trouble, then that leaves us. And we need to keep our eyes on our own paper. We are not doing favors to the planet by taking actions to ensure the conditions we need for continued survival. We are helping ourselves. We do not endanger the planet with excessive diesel-powered heavy machinery use, we are damaging our own lungs. The planet’s future is not nearly as uncertain as ours is. Furthermore, in reality, all of our efforts to “save the planet” are truly efforts to maintain the planetary conditions we require for our survival and that we prefer. Humans are a fragile species. We require precise conditions in order to live, breathe, feed, and survive. The planet is not the meek and vulnerable one, we are.

But, so what is so bad about perpetuating myths about our environmental issues and about our relationship with the planet? Why is this necessarily dangerous, as I have posited above? I believe that this is dangerous because what we believe about everything around us affects the way we treat everything around us. In other words, accepting a more realistic understanding of the planet is critically important because the way we perceive the planet affects our behavior. More specifically, our beliefs will influence whether or not we will engage in environmentally conscious behaviors.

To explain, the human mind is subject to evolutionary constraints. We have evolutionary limitations on our behavior and thinking and these, in turn, affect our motivation to change the way we relate to the environment. Humans tend to be myopic, meaning that we have a hard time appreciating things in the distant future. We also have a hard time finding the motivation to change our behavior and engage in self-sacrificing behaviors if we cannot identify with the object that will benefit from these behavioral changes. Put another way, humans are more likely to engage in environmentally conscious behaviors if we can recognize that we are hurting ourselves. We will work harder to adopt environmentally conscious behaviors if we believe we are saving our own lives rather than doing a nice thing for this amorphous third party thing we call “nature” or a hard to conceptualize entity like the “planet.” Furthermore, if we continue to separate and otherize “nature” we will be less likely to engage in the extreme behavioral changes that will be required to counteract the environmental trends currently threatening our species continued survival.

So, with all of that being said, I think we should stop trying to save the planet. The truth is that the planet is likely just as happy housing poisonous infectious microbes as it is housing humans. The planet can survive without us. And, our peril does not translate into peril for the planet. Instead of focusing so much on saving the planet, let’s focus on changing the way we perceive the planet and the way we perceive ourselves in relation to it. The truth is that we are a part of the planet. We are nature. And we exist in a sort of interdependence with everything around us. Until our laws, our environmental campaigns, and our society can recognize this reality, I fear we will keep spinning our wheels or, even worse, keep rushing ahead toward our own extinction.