Awareness | Debate | Action
What is the West's Responsibility?
by Ice Goldberg
June 22nd, 2009
”In fifty years –a single lifetime– the earth has been more radically changed than by all previous generations of humanity” [1]. Taken lightly, total ecological devastation could effectively arrive this century in the form of climate change due to –putting it simply– the global mismanagement of resources. It may even be too late to mitigate if we cannot come to some consensus in short order.
Today’s scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. “The world is undoubtedly warming, and the warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities” [2]. Speaking of just one impact amid many, it is often said that “among the most serious and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change is sea level rise… which would permanently flood virtually all of America’s major coastal cities” [3]. Who are the leaders with enough influence to deliver change on an ecological pandemic such as this?
Professor Philippe Nemo, in his penetrating book, What is the West?, has put together convincing criteria to support his assertion that the West is superior to the rest of the world. He strings together five elemental developments of Western culture across three thousand years of world history to show how social bonds have fostered institutions for organized exchange through a division of labor, thereby increasing the West’s capacity for knowledge and the speed at which it is implemented. These developments –collectively unique to the West– are the democratic citizen under the rule of law, intertwined with the motivation of eschatological Christian ethics in a diversity of liberal pluralism. The result is a social trust, allowing for an organized exchange of specialized labor’s goods and services, in a market economy. This is what makes the West superior and able to outlast or dominate all other societies.
I am of two minds on Nemo’s claims of superiority. On one hand, I agree with his assessment and reasoning that the West is superior. On the other hand, I am not sure if he has considered the sustainability of the West’s aggressive pursuit for productivity and progress. It is hard to argue against the West’s current global domination, however, Nemo’s criterion for the West as superior lacks a perspective measurement for balance and the sustainability that valuing balance bestows.
The most common criticism of the West is directed towards its material excess and the destruction surrounding this pursuit. We have all witnessed this exploitation through widespread deforestation, reckless pollution, and the social abuse of the disenfranchised third world, to name a common few examples. But could this lack of respect for balance be the end of an empire challenged by hubris?
A Harwood Group study on consumption, entitled Yearning for Balance, found that American citizens “describe a society at odds with itself and its own most important values” [4].
Underlying this dichotomy may be the tectonic fault-lines of a society that is programmed to fail. According to Dale Titus, in his research based paper on teaching democratic values, we find that “values play a small role in predicting behaviors [and] people do not always have the courage to live by their convictions. …It has been suggested that people think as they act and that attitudes follow behavior” [5]. Titus’ research sheds more light on the Harwood survey, possibly indicating that American society is conditioned by early moral teaching as to what is important in life, but gets sidetracked by competing interests later in life. Connecting the dots between the two papers reveals a struggle towards balance for the majority of Americans towards a future of unrewarding or unsustainable achievements and internal conflict.
In picking back up with What is The West?, Nemo weaves a historical trail focusing on criteria that has been non-linear in its accomplishments, with radical swings from its lawful and moral path, especially during the Papal revolution. This leads one to wonder if a society can withstand such radical mistakes on a global scale, with respect to their effect on ecology.
However, Nemo declares that he does not “believe the world is experiencing a global intermingling or fusing of cultures” [6]. This leads some progressives to question whether there will ever be a conflict-free unified world under Nemo’s view, and so long as non-Western nations resist conforming to Western pursuits. In fact, Nemo’s vision is to have a social and economic unification of Western societies based on his criteria in which he favors establishing borders of inside vs. outside. This is where I find the largest inconsistencies with balance. On one hand Nemo, is saying that society, using his common criteria of superiority, needs to set up a global union to further impose unified powers, authorizing “strategic alliances against one or more potential adversaries held in common” [6]. On the other hand, he argues that “it is a faulty notion that the State is able to organize pluralism within its own institutions. Both the State and its internal institutions cannot be criticized from within. If there is no external civil society in which dissidence can exist, then public debate is locked in a paradigm that assumes the value of dogma” [6]. This imbalance, in my opinion is the Achilles Heel to Nemo’s assertions of an enduring superiority, and I believe, based on his latter statement, –and on other issues beyond the scope of this paper– that this debate has already taken on the value of dogma, within the institutions of the West.
Nemo however fails to recognize the greater effect that the demands of the West could have on a fragile eco-system by the relatively unfettered expansion and productivity of mankind, especially in the last fifty years. The bigger this aggressive expansion gets, the bigger the potential disaster. In bringing to mind Newton’s Law, (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) this potential disaster can directly cause great harm and suffering, to the point of total and irreversible ecological devastation. Since Nemo’s criteria clearly demonstrate the sole culpability for this potential disaster is that of the West, it is therefore the sole responsibility of its leaders to organize a global consensus for its mitigation. One Google search shows that I am not alone on this line of thinking, according to the vast majority of widely published climate change scientists without special interests.
Maybe Andy Warhol gave us the term that best describes what we have let ourselves become, and that is “deeply superficial.” Our misguided, wanton quest and temptation for the brass ring has brought us to a crossroads. In our pursuit for progress we should keep many things in mind about our vision of the future and ask that our leaders consider balance for the sake of humanity. In the prolific words of former Police lead singer Gordon Sumner, –AKA Sting, from his song, All this time– one question rings out in harmony; “What good is a used-up world and how can it be worth having?”
Sources
[1] Bertrand, Yann Arthus. “Home, A Film by Yann Arthus Bertrand,” (the Trailer). Elzévir Films, France, June 5th 2009.
[2] Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change 101 Science and Impacts Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Science-Jan09.pdf
[3] Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Global Warming Basics, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
[4] Harwood Group, Yearning for Balance, Merck Family Fund, 1995. http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1144
[5] Titus, Dale. Teaching Democratic Values Which Balance Unity and Diversity in a Pluralistic Society. Kutztown
University of Pennsylvania, August 1996 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_0...
[6] Nemo, Philippe. What is the West? Publisher: Duquesne University Press (December 15, 2005)
About the author: Ice Goldberg is the Political Contributing Editor at The Activist Motivator social network
June 22nd, 2009
”In fifty years –a single lifetime– the earth has been more radically changed than by all previous generations of humanity” [1]. Taken lightly, total ecological devastation could effectively arrive this century in the form of climate change due to –putting it simply– the global mismanagement of resources. It may even be too late to mitigate if we cannot come to some consensus in short order.
Today’s scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. “The world is undoubtedly warming, and the warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities” [2]. Speaking of just one impact amid many, it is often said that “among the most serious and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change is sea level rise… which would permanently flood virtually all of America’s major coastal cities” [3]. Who are the leaders with enough influence to deliver change on an ecological pandemic such as this?
Professor Philippe Nemo, in his penetrating book, What is the West?, has put together convincing criteria to support his assertion that the West is superior to the rest of the world. He strings together five elemental developments of Western culture across three thousand years of world history to show how social bonds have fostered institutions for organized exchange through a division of labor, thereby increasing the West’s capacity for knowledge and the speed at which it is implemented. These developments –collectively unique to the West– are the democratic citizen under the rule of law, intertwined with the motivation of eschatological Christian ethics in a diversity of liberal pluralism. The result is a social trust, allowing for an organized exchange of specialized labor’s goods and services, in a market economy. This is what makes the West superior and able to outlast or dominate all other societies.
I am of two minds on Nemo’s claims of superiority. On one hand, I agree with his assessment and reasoning that the West is superior. On the other hand, I am not sure if he has considered the sustainability of the West’s aggressive pursuit for productivity and progress. It is hard to argue against the West’s current global domination, however, Nemo’s criterion for the West as superior lacks a perspective measurement for balance and the sustainability that valuing balance bestows.
The most common criticism of the West is directed towards its material excess and the destruction surrounding this pursuit. We have all witnessed this exploitation through widespread deforestation, reckless pollution, and the social abuse of the disenfranchised third world, to name a common few examples. But could this lack of respect for balance be the end of an empire challenged by hubris?
A Harwood Group study on consumption, entitled Yearning for Balance, found that American citizens “describe a society at odds with itself and its own most important values” [4].
Huge majorities of Americans cite responsibility, family life and friendship as key guiding principles for themselves, with more than 85 percent of survey respondents rating those values at 8 or higher on a 10-point scale. Yet respondents believe that their fellow Americans do not share these priorities: fewer than half believe that responsibility, family life, or friendship rate 8 or higher for most people in our society. Conversely, people feel that most Americans are more strongly guided by prosperity and wealth than they are themselves. These gaps reveal a dissonance in American life - a divergence between how people view their own priorities and those of the rest of society. [4]It can therefore be argued that the majority of us see Americans as materialistic, yet we yearn for a balance towards actually living more fulfilling lives. “The frenzied, excessive quality of American life today has left people yearning for balance. [We] feel that an essential side of life centered on family, friends, and community has been pushed aside by the dominant ethic of “more, more, more’” [4].
Underlying this dichotomy may be the tectonic fault-lines of a society that is programmed to fail. According to Dale Titus, in his research based paper on teaching democratic values, we find that “values play a small role in predicting behaviors [and] people do not always have the courage to live by their convictions. …It has been suggested that people think as they act and that attitudes follow behavior” [5]. Titus’ research sheds more light on the Harwood survey, possibly indicating that American society is conditioned by early moral teaching as to what is important in life, but gets sidetracked by competing interests later in life. Connecting the dots between the two papers reveals a struggle towards balance for the majority of Americans towards a future of unrewarding or unsustainable achievements and internal conflict.
In picking back up with What is The West?, Nemo weaves a historical trail focusing on criteria that has been non-linear in its accomplishments, with radical swings from its lawful and moral path, especially during the Papal revolution. This leads one to wonder if a society can withstand such radical mistakes on a global scale, with respect to their effect on ecology.
However, Nemo declares that he does not “believe the world is experiencing a global intermingling or fusing of cultures” [6]. This leads some progressives to question whether there will ever be a conflict-free unified world under Nemo’s view, and so long as non-Western nations resist conforming to Western pursuits. In fact, Nemo’s vision is to have a social and economic unification of Western societies based on his criteria in which he favors establishing borders of inside vs. outside. This is where I find the largest inconsistencies with balance. On one hand Nemo, is saying that society, using his common criteria of superiority, needs to set up a global union to further impose unified powers, authorizing “strategic alliances against one or more potential adversaries held in common” [6]. On the other hand, he argues that “it is a faulty notion that the State is able to organize pluralism within its own institutions. Both the State and its internal institutions cannot be criticized from within. If there is no external civil society in which dissidence can exist, then public debate is locked in a paradigm that assumes the value of dogma” [6]. This imbalance, in my opinion is the Achilles Heel to Nemo’s assertions of an enduring superiority, and I believe, based on his latter statement, –and on other issues beyond the scope of this paper– that this debate has already taken on the value of dogma, within the institutions of the West.
Nemo however fails to recognize the greater effect that the demands of the West could have on a fragile eco-system by the relatively unfettered expansion and productivity of mankind, especially in the last fifty years. The bigger this aggressive expansion gets, the bigger the potential disaster. In bringing to mind Newton’s Law, (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) this potential disaster can directly cause great harm and suffering, to the point of total and irreversible ecological devastation. Since Nemo’s criteria clearly demonstrate the sole culpability for this potential disaster is that of the West, it is therefore the sole responsibility of its leaders to organize a global consensus for its mitigation. One Google search shows that I am not alone on this line of thinking, according to the vast majority of widely published climate change scientists without special interests.
Maybe Andy Warhol gave us the term that best describes what we have let ourselves become, and that is “deeply superficial.” Our misguided, wanton quest and temptation for the brass ring has brought us to a crossroads. In our pursuit for progress we should keep many things in mind about our vision of the future and ask that our leaders consider balance for the sake of humanity. In the prolific words of former Police lead singer Gordon Sumner, –AKA Sting, from his song, All this time– one question rings out in harmony; “What good is a used-up world and how can it be worth having?”
Sources
[1] Bertrand, Yann Arthus. “Home, A Film by Yann Arthus Bertrand,” (the Trailer). Elzévir Films, France, June 5th 2009.
[2] Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change 101 Science and Impacts Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Science-Jan09.pdf
[3] Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Global Warming Basics, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
[4] Harwood Group, Yearning for Balance, Merck Family Fund, 1995. http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1144
[5] Titus, Dale. Teaching Democratic Values Which Balance Unity and Diversity in a Pluralistic Society. Kutztown
University of Pennsylvania, August 1996 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_0...
[6] Nemo, Philippe. What is the West? Publisher: Duquesne University Press (December 15, 2005)
About the author: Ice Goldberg is the Political Contributing Editor at The Activist Motivator social network
-
Comment by Cromag on June 23, 2009 at 4:52pm
-
Obama Must Show More Personal Leadership on Climate Change: 20 Leading Scientists Say in Open Letter
Finally though, scientists are speaking up; 20 of the United States' leading climate and environmental scientists have written an open letter to President Obama and Congress highlighting the gap between what science says is necessary and what politics deems feasible. The full letter is available from The Woods Hole Research Center, but here's the link to gist of it
-
-
-
"Blog Action Day" www.blogactionday.org
Comment
About
Follow Twitter
Visitors
© 2024 Created by Cromag.
Powered by
You need to be a member of The Activist Motivator to add comments!
Join The Activist Motivator