Environmental Perspective on
Trust and Social Consensus in a Changing
World
Natalia
Parra
Conflicting interest have always existed,
but they
are on
the rise for the simple reason that the
previous
existing barriers and frontiers of the world
are
disappearing, therefore increasing the variables
that
play a role in the world economy, politics, and
social
concern. In recent years there has been a
noticeable
increase in grass root movements expressing
their
sentiments against the effects of this imminent
globalization,
most of which are either directly or
indirectly
related to the environment and the
distribution
of resources. Nevertheless, these grass
root
movements are very minute when compared to the
scope
of the issues they are addressing, for these
issues
are constrained by multiple factors, putting
these
movements in a stalemate position as far as
having
a tangible impact. Coupled with the lack of
dialogue
among the state and concerned citizens, and
the
state’s inability to channel their concerns, this
stalemate
position has created a kind of social
unrest,
a certain degree of public frustration in face
of the
global changes taking place. This frustration
is not
only due to the fact that these changes are
wide in
scope, have great repercussions, and posses
the
potential for further impact, -as well as that,
ultimately,
in many cases the changes are unwanted-,
but
because there have been no official channels to
direct
the concerns of private citizens. There is a
fear
that accompanies change, and the inability to
express
concern through official forums has led
concerned
private citizen’s fear to translate itself
into
extremist positions. This leads me to the issue
of fear
vs. ignorance, for I believe that fear and
extremism,
in this case, are not a translation of
ignorance
as much as they are a translation of a sense
powerlessness.
You could argue that the reason grassroots
movements
have
been born as a response to globalization and
environmental
concerns is because of a lack of faith
on the
capacity of technology to overcome our current
problems
and those that will come in the future. I
believe
this is partly true, and I believe that many
people’s
skepticism could be solved by properly
informing
them. Nevertheless, ignorance is not the
core of
the problem. The concerns of grassroots
movements
regarding environmental issues and
distribution
of wealth are valid to the extent that
they
are a result of survival instincts, ethics, and
the
lack of faith in the potential benefits of this
seemingly
unstoppable change (the latter two boiling
down to
survival as well).
When
mentioning survival instinct I am referring to
the fact
that, for one, many people do not trust
technology
to solve our environmental problems, but on
the
contrary, they expect technology to advance them.
This is
clear in the United States and Europe where
there
is a noticeable trend in the rejection of
genetically
altered or hormone saturated foods.
Organic
shops and health food stores are becoming more
and
more popular for they are promoting “technology
free
foods”, foods that have been grown without any
genetic
altering or the help of pesticides. This is a
clear
statement to the present atmosphere of rejection
regarding
these technological advancements. This
rejection
is profoundly psychological. For example,
biological
engineering gives way to a wandering
speculation
of what the boundaries will be regarding
the
creation of life. Our survival instinct will –
predictably
- produce a negative reaction toward the
creation
of life through the crossing of biological
boundaries
and limitations that are now being crossed
thanks
to technology. This is because understanding
and
mastering the art of life making through
technology
perhaps will lead to the depreciation of
life
itself. It is a very simple concept: The easier
and
more abundant a product is, the less value it has.
Even in
a country like the United States where the
technology
of biological engineering is highly
regulated
negative sentiments still arise. I believe
this is
because the technology did not come about in a
time
when public information regarding it existed, and
nor was
there a public sense that this technology was
a
desired solution. Because of this, and the fears
that
arouse, the fact that this technology is highly
regulated
now is inconsequential, for regulation perse
is not
addressing the public’s concerns regarding the
issue.
From a political perspective, in a world
that is
highly
stratified, many people feel that change might
actually
leave them behind. For example, in a
free
market
capitalistic scenario those who believe
themselves
to have the capabilities to succeed in
relation
to others might choose to support such a
system.
But those who, on the other hand, do not
believe
themselves to have the resources to succeed,
those
who fear being left behind, might lean towards a
more
socialist ideal. This is because socialism has
ingrained
in its philosophy the ideal that it is the
duty of
the state to take care of all its citizens.
Now, a
socialist might actually recognize that
practically
speaking a free market economy is sounder
than
the economic policies of a socialist government.
Nevertheless,
it is undeniable that if his/her
capacity
to succeed in the free market economy is
limited
when compared to his/her capacity to succeed
in the
socialist economic framework, then his/her best
option
is to go with the socialist system. In the
previous
simplified example, the socialist system, in
believing
its duty to take care of its citizens, has
an
ethical element that has proven to be the chosen
survival
strategy for many. The same rational can be
applied
to the issue of technology vs. environmental
resources
vs. the current economic world order.
Here
in the
United States for example, companies have the
right
to sue if their right to profit is hindered in
any
way, even if this profit is made at the expense of
the
environment. The idea that “more” technology will
solve
the problem of our environmental dependence
seems,
understandably, cocky to many, for the simple
reason
that there are no guarantees and that, until
now,
technology since the industrial revolution has
been
perceived as an important cause for environmental
degradation.
And even more so because even if
incredible
advances have taken place, the “average
Joe”
does not know about them or in what way the
advances
will benefit him or her personally.
However
unaware people might be of technological
advances,
there are many people that are becoming
intensely
aware of the rapid changes taking place due
to
these technological advances and globalization. And
though
change has always occurred, never before has it
occurred
with such far-reaching effects in a scenario
where a
great portion of the population was aware of
it and
had the voice to speak out with their concerns.
Society
is wondering: Is this new world of technology
dominating
nature really desirable? But on the other
hand,
these questions are faced with the impossibility
of
retracting on humanities steps, and furthermore,
these
questions are faced with the ultimate issue: Are
these
changes unavoidable? This is why
consensus will
be the
most important factor when bringing about this
change,
and trust the way to do it. Ultimately, the
unavoidable
should be a platform from which to work,
not an
excuse for conformist attitudes regarding
change
and its negative consequences, or, on the other
hand, a
basis for extremist reactions.
How
will this trust be fomented? First of all, by
education,
and secondly, but equally important, by the
creation
of a global culture that will help us
accommodate
to these changes. A culture that, above
all,
will display the ethical values that are
necessary
to promote trust and consensus among the
concerned
citizens of the first world countries that
are
engineering this change. “... Systems of trust
work
better when members in the system adopt a moral
stance
of “altruistic stance”. In altruistic trust,
one
trusts the other more than is warranted by the
available
evidence, as a gift, for the good of both
the
other and the community”. (Warren,
1999). Bill
Joe
might actually feel more comfortable if this
“ethical/altruistic”
culture was in place. Also, many
groups
today are concerned about the issue of
monopolies
and big corporations for they are said to
have a
power of devastating consequences, and even
worse, the
power to not be regulated. According to A.
J.
Muste the challenge in building an effective
[environmental]
movement “is to bring the state and
other
institutions of the world to adjust themselves
to our
demands...” He asks: “How will this be done if
the
institutions of the world manipulate our culture
so that
millions and millions of people regard them,
in the
words of historian Laurence Goodwyn, as
“venerable
repositories of good sense” when they are,
in
fact, merely powerful.” (Erickson, 1990
Today,
those with power, power meaning money, are the
ones
whose interest are being represented in policy
making,
which has made society noticeably bitter and
distrustful
of government. It seems that the sentiment
today
is that democracy serves those who can afford to
be
heard. As Mark Warren states: “Trust can develop
where
interests converge, but in politics interest
conflict.
Democracies build on a recognition that
politics
does not provide a natural terrain for robust
trust
relationships, and so includes a healthy
distrust
of the interests of others, especially the
powerful.”
(Warren, 1999) In this democratic
system
of
ours, government is constrained to a great degree
when
attempting to implement environmentally sound
policy
by the interest of corporations, big companies,
etc. To
the point that it is not clear to what extent
government
affects the market, and to what extent the
market
constrains government. I will state very simply
that in
the changing world we live in today I believe
government’s
role should be one of abridging the gap
between
society, technology, and environmental
concerns.
Parting from here, I also believe that
government
should enjoy more freedom from the
financial
interest of big corporations, especially
when
implementing environmental policy. Not only this,
but
perhaps through a governments freedom to implement
sound
policy technology might come to be perceived as
a
solution tool, not like the indiscriminate
development
of scientific advancements that will
continue
to deplete environmental resources, and that
will
bring financial gains and commodities to a select
few.
In a
world where most advanced countries have highly
stratified
societies, and were most third world
countries
are enjoying precarious environmental
conditions
(neither factor limited to first or third
world
countries), and specially given that technology,
interdependence,
and the capitalistic system, are
perceived
to lead the world in this direction,
uneasiness
is not a surprise. The issue is not whether
technology,
interdependence, and the capitalistic
system
will not aggravate these problems, or whether
they
will actually improve them. One of the issues at
stake
is whether there are viable alternatives to
technology,
interdependence, and capitalism. Probably
not,
which is why the most important question is
whether
the concerned people of the world, those
promoting
grass root movements against these things
can
actually be convinced of it in order to promote
compromise.
In dealing with this issue there is an
element
of time. The fact of the matter is that our
planet
is suffering from many ailments. The global
warming
phenomenon is a very hard one to disprove or
brush
off as a minor problem. Deforestation and soil
depletion
are driving thousands into hunger, and the
dangers,
along with the causes, can no longer be
perceived
as local but more than ever they are being
perceived
as global threats.
I will
stress again that many of the environmental
problems
that are a problem today have been directly
or
indirectly caused by industrialization
(technology),
population growth, capitalism, and
imperialism,
and therefore, it is understandable that
the
first reaction of those seeking solutions is to
reject
those factors that have brought us to this
scenario.
It is true, nevertheless, that there is no
turning
back and that solutions need to take these
factors
into account, but theorizing on possible
solutions
is rendered useless unless solution proposal
enjoys
public support, and I believe that public
support
for solutions involving greater technology and
the
perpetuation of the capitalistic system will not
become
a reality unless those groups in society who
feel at
a loss within the global system begin to trust
that
the entities in control, or the entities that to
some
degree are directing these changes, are actually
taking
into account their concerns. This
“accountability”
can be either for the sake of
consensus
in carrying on with this change or, (in my
personal
opinion), better yet, because of an ingrained
ethical
stance that believes in the inherent value of
protecting
the interests of the whole.
Trust
is fundamental to any system of government, and
I
venture to say that is has been for as long as the
human
kind has lived within the framework of any kind
of
social organization. A tribe trusts its leader’s
capacity
for decision making. Dictatorships are
generally
mounted on the blind faith of loyal – though
often
few - supporters that trust the leader’s
intentions.
In a democracy we need to trust that the
system
works in relation to its fairness and trust
that
majority rule is fair and legitimate. Based on
this,
we could say that to a certain degree trust is
ultimately,
in some way or fashion, the platform from
where
any kind of social organization comes to be.
However,
there is a sort of dilemma that comes to be
in
democratic systems. This dilemma can be defined as
the
stagnation the government might find itself in
when
faced with the conflicting interest of the public
good
and big corporations. This can be exemplified
beautifully
by the environmental dilemma of natural
disaster
prevention. On the one hand disaster
prevention
is obviously a necessity. Nevertheless
economic
interest and political strategy have
prevented
measures to be put into effect in many
cases.
Take a small-scale example: The current
droughts
in Griffin, Georgia. Regulations have been
placed
that implore residents to use water sparingly,
although
these regulations have not been enforced. In
other
countries, if a drought takes place with the
same
severity the regulations will be enforced. I dare
to
venture that if this had been the case in Griffin,
the
water supply would have lasted noticeably longer,
although
the public might have demonstrated severe
discontent.
A democratic government must be able to
bypass
these problems of stagnation in order to work
for the
public good. An equilibrium must be attained
in
where economic interest do no prevent the
government
from implementing sound policy and visible
positive
change. A fundamental question also comes
into
play: How much power must the government have in
order
to be efficient? And, who decides on what
constitutes
the public good? Well, everybody should
feel
like a part of this process, for being alienated
from it
will lead to frustration and extremism as a
counter
reaction.
The
point is that solution to current problems
invariably
will necessitate of the use of technology
and
other elements that are perceive to harm the
environment.
This takes me again, to the issue of
consensus
and, specifically, to how this consensus can
be
reached. The best option seems to be education for
several
reasons. For one, the more educated the people
the
less likely they are to feel powerless and
therefore
the less likely they are to experience the
kind of
fear that will lead to social unrest. This
also
takes us to the issue of Propaganda vs.
Education.
It is important to keep in mind that
propaganda,
although very effective, can still be
recognized
and rejected, especially today in a world
of
relatively free transaction of information
(although
some would argue that). Not only this, but
the
foundation of a new society will not be strong if
propaganda
substitutes quality education. The state,
being
the entity in charge of bridging the gap between
society,
globalization, and technology, must embrace
concerns
even if perceived as backward and ignorant,
and
must not resolve to state that the trajectory
being
pursued is the best solution. By embrace I also
mean
that the state should take a position of listener
and
mediator in order to explain why, although
embracing
concerns, it cannot embrace proposed
solutions.
For example the nuclear weapons problem.
States
should stress that although concerns regarding
the
construction of these weapons are legitimate, to
demand
their deployment is highly unrealistic.
Only
through
trust and education will it be possible to
promote
change in a “sustainable” fashion, again
minimizing
the chance for extreme opposition.
Nature
has previously been perceived as an infinite
pool of
resources, but just like the United States
witnessed
the end of manifest destiny, so has humanity
been
woken up to the reality of natural resource
depletion.
Because of this, no one can deny that the
beliefs
that have been dominating our attitudes toward
the
exploitation of the environment need to change and
adapt
to the new world order and the planet’s present
state.
What this change will consist of is still
blurred
behind fear, economics, and the possible
alternatives.
From this we can draw the conclusion
that
consensus through well-grounded trust will play a
vital
role in future solutions. And that as population
grows,
governments evolve into more democratic systems
of
government, interdependence increases, and
conflicting
interests arise, not only is trust
becoming
harder and harder to attain, but it is
becoming
an imperative necessity.
Bibliography
Burtless,
Gary
1998 Globaphobia Brookings Institution
Cooper,
Joseph
1999 Congress and the Decline of Public
Trust.
Westview
Press.
Erickson,
Brad ed.
1990
Call to Action: Handbook for Ecology,
Peace, and Justice. Sierra Club
Books,
San Francisco, CA.
Warren, Mark E.
1999 Democracy and Trust. Cambridge University
Press.
Cambridge
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/