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/