Is it Time for the Passengers to Help Pilot Spaceship Earth?

Mark Usher, MSc student of Sustainability (Environmental Politics and Policy) School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds. May 2009. In the imagination of those who are sensitive to the realities of our era, the earth has become a space ship, and this, perhaps, is the most important single fact of our day. (Boulding 19651) In referring to earth as a spaceship, the economist-cum-philosopher Kenneth Boulding was alluding to our planet as a closed, isolated and finite sphere surrounded by hostile blackness; an image which has captured the imagination of the global community since it was first photographed from space in the late 1960s 2, literally transforming humankinds collective worldview. Yet, fundamental human assumptions, profoundly shaped by religious, philosophical, economic and scientific endeavour, have prevailed for thousands of years blissfully ignorant to limits to growth, and will presumably continue to do so for years to come. But unfortunately, as populations grow, as affluence of these populations increase (albeit inequitably), and technological advancement expands, these long-established assumptions are becoming wholly inconsistent with the sustainability of spaceship earth. Markedly, the self-privileging cornucopian mindset of humanity has been ingrained in and perpetuated by human institutions, past and present. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the relentless progress made by human institutions throughout history has disproportionately benefited the powerful; the monarchs, statesmen, warlords, businessmen and clergymen3. However, as Boulding1 asserts: The consequences of earth becoming a space ship for the social system are profound and little understood. It is clear that much human behavior and many human institutions in the past, which were appropriate to all infinite earth, are entirely inappropriate to a small closed space ship. Indeed, the foundations on which markets and scientific progress are erected are trembling under the weight of these monolithic institutions that have outgrown the earths carrying capacity. Consequently, modernity is a time of uncertainty; an era shaped by global financial collapse, runaway climate change, unresponsive
1

governments, and technologies capable of mass human and environmental destruction4. Yet, given the vested interests in the continuation of these institutions, the likelihood of a powerful voice questioning the profit-making treadmill of production and consumption is negligible. However, at the same time, human institutions are important to society as a whole; democratic governments can provide a means for legitimate and accountable authority, just as markets can break people out of poverty, and technological advancement can enhance the quality of life of millions of people. Accordingly, what is needed is not the immediate abolishment of human institutions (although some Deep ecologists and anarchists would argue otherwise5); to do so would be regressive, reactionary and nave. Spaceship earth may be starting to nose dive, but dismantling the wings is hardly going to help. Rather, an overhaul of existing institutions is called for that would democratise the management of the environment, through reformation not revolution. This entails greater public participation, innovative business ideas that are perceptive to sustainable development, and multi-stakeholder processes that can monitor and assess progress more holistically. And crucially, in Britain, there has been no better time than the present in which to reform our institutions. With crises of confidence proliferating throughout our governments, markets and laboratories, the cracks that have appeared in the institutional pillars of society provide fertile ground for incipient roots of a more sustainable, inclusive and democratic culture. Firstly, cracks that have appeared in state institutions provide an impetus for addressing governmental shortcomings. Most of these cracks merely threaten the veneer of the political system, or temporarily satisfy the medias political soap opera; sleazy MPs have been caught cavorting on yachts within higher social circles; damning accusations persist of political parties offering cash for peerages, and more recently cash for amendments in the House of Lords; and one shouldnt underestimate the damage that has been caused by the recent expenses claims controversy. More worrying allegations have also surfaced of Britains involvement in torture, and the bitter taste left behind from the Iraq war serves as a reminder of state resistance to public opinion. Additionally, the police force as the visible face of domestic state authority has been deeply criticised for a whole range of issues, but recent accusations of power abuses against environmental protesters at the G20 Summit in London hardly smack of state greening. Consequently, the state appears to be more out of touch with the public than ever, and this has grave implications for the political system, but also the ecological challenge ahead. The credibility of the political system has plummeted over recent years, political disillusionment is

widespread, and voter turnout in Britain has been steadily declining as a result6. Yet there are cracks that run much deeper, which are inherent in the political system and threaten to undermine attempts to steer a more sustainable path for spaceship earth. Principally, the political parties that run the country are chiefly motivated by short-term concerns7 that will attract votes, therefore tax cuts and other politically popular initiatives will always trump any meaningful move to sustainable measures. Similarly, in a competitive and fragmented global community, states are unsurprisingly driven by realist and Machiavellian concerns that prioritise the health and wealth of that nation above all8. Furthermore, political and economic interests have traditionally gone hand in hand, and with the growing power of business actors and increasing mobility of capital in a globalised world, politicians are often left pandering to the markets, to the detriment of the global environment9. Yet cracks have also appeared in the global markets too. Indeed, some would argue that the market has gaping chasms rather then mere cracks in its constitution, particularly in relation to increasing casino capitalism and free trade10. Markedly, the global financial crisis that has brought many nation states to their knees, has spectacularly demonstrated that economic theory doesnt often translate into practice; political and practical obstacles are frequent stumbling blocks. The resulting crisis of confidence in the market threatens to undermine potentially substantial contributions that can be made by innovative, more inclusive market solutions. But like the proud Emperor who confidently paraded the streets naked, believing he was wearing invisible clothes of the finest textiles, advocates of the market have stubbornly insisted that Adam Smiths invisible hand is decidedly obvious to those who look hard enough, even when the chill of exposure indicates otherwise. Unflinching faith in the efficiency of the market cannot address the underlying causes of the ecological crisis onboard spaceship earth, namely consumption and production processes tailored to unlimited growth. Similarly, for those that have claimed we can buy ourselves out of the ecological crisis through green consumerism and environmentally friendly technology, the current financial turmoil serves as a timely reminder of the volatile nature of the markets. Moreover, consumers can hardly trust companies or individuals affiliated with the market at the present time, with continuous revelations regarding greedy bankers pocketing enormous bonuses and irresponsible corporations committing what the BBCs Newsnight terms the biggest toxic dumping scandal of the 21st century11. Of course, initiatives such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), voluntary codes and ecolabels are signs of progress and indicate a move to more reflective business ethics, an

appropriate development indeed. However, without adequate transparency and participation from non-business actors, charges of corporate propaganda and greenwash will continue to tar market solutions, sometimes undeservedly. Although not as immediately obvious as the fractures in our state and market foundations, cracks have also begun to appear in our research institutions. Principally, research institutions adhere to orthodox scientific laws founded on positivist examination that objectively study the world in a strictly problem-solving manner12. Accordingly, adherents to the scientific approach generally claim resulting knowledge to be rigorous, neutral, universal and superior to other forms of knowledge. Insomuch, science is perceived to be a mirror of the world. However, growing numbers of academics, activists, developers and indigenous peoples are questioning Sciences claim to the monopoly of the truth, particularly in relation to environmental science13. This hardly implies a crisis of confidence, but it certainly indicates that the challenge to scientific hegemony is gathering momentum. Already, UN agencies and other intergovernmental organisations have begun to accommodate alternative truth claims in their glossy publications, such as traditional indigenous ecological knowledge14. In a world that is becoming increasingly uncertain, in part because of scientific research and technology, science is becoming more and more contested, for example; climate change is both supported or discounted through scientific research, the GMO debate has dramatically divided both the scientific and lay communities, and the same can be said for stem cell research, inter alia. Evidently, technocratic solutions cannot be expected to address and resolve the underlying problems of the ecological crisis if left to progress unchecked. Furthermore, the political neutrality of science has come under increasing speculation, as doubts have been expressed as to whether scientific inquiry takes place outside of social and political spheres, and similar concerns about the impartiality of research funding have been aired15. Exclusive elite-controlled institutions are not efficient, effective nor fair. Yet the cracks appearing in our state, market and research institutions have been regarded as threats to progress and the status quo. Instead, these cracks can provide opportunities to progress from the status quo; the incipient roots of a more inclusive and democratic culture of sustainability can thrive in the crumbling institutional pillars that are no longer appropriate for spaceship earth. Of course, the basic infrastructure will still be there, the roots will simply strengthen the existing frame. It is time for the passengers to help pilot spaceship earth, to induce a more collective process that democratically identifies and regulates environmental risks. Firstly, this would necessitate a cultural shift from a purely national sense of citizenship to a wider cosmopolitan-ecological one

that emphasises duties in addition to rights16; the relentless globalisation of society already appears to be setting this shift in motion. Cracks in our state institutions may provide a niche for this greener sense of interdependent citizenship to bloom, indeed, a more positive response to political incompetence than resorting to reactionary far-right alternatives; a common occurrence in times of political disillusionment and economic hardship. Furthermore, the necessity of such a shift may become more apparent if states fail to agree on a robust roadmap at Copenhagen at the end of the year. Secondly, cracks in market institutions can encourage the democratisation of economic governance through the focus of sustainable development. Progress has certainly been made in this respect with the introduction of CSR, voluntary codes and ecolabels over recent decades. The self-interested rationality of profit-seeking businesses in the dynamic entrepreneurial environment of the market could be a valuable asset in confronting the ecological challenge faced by spaceship earth. However, market innovation can only be effectively harnessed if channelled through multistakeholder processes and inclusive environmental management that is perceptive to human and environmental concerns, and more qualitative forms of growth. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which employs an innovative tripartite regulatory system comprising of business, social and environmental chambers, could serve as a prototype for future market initiatives17. Otherwise, as the current financial crisis has demonstrated, the market will only benefit the minority at the expense of the majority if left to its own devices. Thirdly, cracks in research institutions can serve as an impetus for the democratisation of environmental decision-making and knowledge generation. If advancing science and technology are creating more risks18, and as Science seemingly holds the authority to identify what should count as risk19, and as scientists are also deeply affected by social and political factors20; scientific processes should become more transparent and inclusive, involving greater participation from spaceship earths passengers. After all, they have just as much invested in the future of our planet, qualitatively if not quantitatively. To attain environmental management that is effective, efficient and fair demands a reformation of our existing institutions, that brings qualitative gains for the majority, not quantitative gains for the few. Increased transparency and participation in state, market and research institutions will restore public trust, provide more solutions to complex environmental problems and democratise the associated decision-making processes. Crucially, spaceship earth appears to be at a crossroads, and choosing a more inclusive and holistic route has never been more feasible and necessary.

(Word count: 1,998)

References

Kenneth E. Boulding Papers, Archives (Box # 38), University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries, available at http://www.colorado.edu/econ/Kenneth.Boulding/spaceship-earth.html 2 The most cited example would be Earthrise, taken by Apollo 8 astronaut, William A. Anders, December 24, 1968. 3 C. Wright Mills offers a tour de force account of how power resides within institutions in The Power Elite (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956) 4 See Ulrich Beck Risk Society (London: Sage 1992) 5 See John Zerzan Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilisation (US: Feral House 2002) 6 http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm 7 Schmidt, M.G. On the Political Productivity of Democracies Scandinavian Political Studies 22: 4: 281-294, 1999 8 International relations theory offers useful analyses of state behaviour and assumptions. In particular, Kate ONeill does so in relation to environmental issues (The Environment and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 9 See Farnsworth, K. Corporate Power and Social Policy in a Global Economy (Bristol: Policy Press 2004) 10 For a critique of free trade, see Daly, H. The Perils of Free Trade Scientific American 1993 p. 24-29 11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8048626.stm 12 Thomas Kuhns famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examines the underlying principles of Science, and offers a timely critique of the scientific process (Chicago: Chicago University Press 1962) 13 Tim Forsyth analyses environmental science and decision-making, and skilfully demonstrates that science and politics are inherently interconnected (Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science, London: Routledge 2003) 14 For an in-depth discussion regarding the utility of traditional knowledge see Berkes et al Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management Ecological Applications 10: 5: 1251-1262, 200 15 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/05/12/captive-knowledge/ 16 Andrew Dobson elaborates on the concept of ecological citizenship in Citizenship and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 17 See Cashore, B. Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How NonState Market-Driven Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority Governance 15: 4: 503529, 2002 18 See Ulrich Beck Risk Society (London: Sage 1992) 19 See Sheila Jasonoff The Songlines of Risk Environmental Values 8: 135-152, 1999 20 See Tim Forsyth Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science, London: Routledge 2003
1

2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2