by Chris Alexion, Copyright April 26, 2007, all rights reserved. 34 views
Humanity is a divided family. Racism introduces artificial barriers between nations, splitting the human race into colors. Philosophers and politicians are known for controversy and self-serving interests. Even scientists–hailed by many today as objective, neutral saviors of human knowledge–are notoriously unable to agree with each other on very much for very long. Given man's fractured nature, can anything serve to unite us? Can the disparate elements of humanity be joined for a greater goal or marshalled against a common foe?
Some have suggested that environmental problems, due to their global scope, can force people to serve a greater good and fend off shared disaster. And this notion has a certain amount of plausibility. It would seem to make sense that a knowledge that we all share the same planet–and that our planet's decay does not respect national boundaries–would lead to greater cooperation. One thinks of American patriot Patrick Henry's famous "War Is Inevitable" speech in the early days of the American War of Independence. Henry argued that British forces would not distinguish between Massachusets, New York, and Virginia for long, and thus neither should the Americans. Henry rallied his countrymen by a sense of shared American (versus colonial) identity. "Our brethren," he argued, "are already in the field. Why stand we here idle?"
But while environmental decay could be a unifying force, a second glance reveals other factors–factors which indicate that it's not all as simple as that. For instance, environmental issues today are themselves controversial; they divide as much as they unite. Politicians are split between using environmental scare tactics to beef up a centralized state and ignoring them to pander to commercial interests. Scientists and ecologists also differ on the long-term answers to questions like global warming. Humbler scientists admit that we simply haven't experienced enough of a big picture to get a full grasp on what current trends mean. Saying that environmental decay could unify the planet against a common disaster is one thing. Sorting out the actual dangers from the hype and coming up with a solution acceptable to all is something else.
Human selfishness is another factor that complicates the naivete of the original quotation. Even if a firm knowledge of environmental decay could be agreed upon, selfishness is so ingrained in human nature that no clear, common solution may ever develop. It's human nature to look out for number one, even when logic dictates the greater good.
Procrastination is also a problem. Given the human tendency to look out for personal survival, many people may find it hard to look beyond our decade and really catch a vision of hope for their children and grandchildren. It's all too easy to say, as did King Hezekiah, "At least there will be peace in my time," and leave the rest to our grandkids.
So while it's possible that environmental decay could unify the squabbling step-family we call the human race, this position itself tacitly assumes several key parts of the debate. Unity is not going to come by ignoring other perspectives and glossing over the inherent fallenness of human nature. Man's problem is not just his environment; it's himself. The solution has to go deeper.
-----No comments yet.