The discussion starts with first realizing the detachment we hold when in conversation about the Earth. It has become internalized that we are separate entities and bodies living “ON” the Earth and not with it. Bruno Latur (2020) rightly describes this phenomenon in the form of a dialogue, we are narcissistic, we are oblivious, and quite rude to call ourselves earthly when we cannot even recognize the symbiotic systems we are in. The tensions that are created by us go beyond just us, they cater to the entirety of the world, human and non-human beings.
Capitalism has largely been a YOU problem rather than an ME problem and is set in such a rigid motion cycle that we find it impossible to get out of. It remains to date a pursuit of profit more than just growth. It emphasizes shorter economic gains over environmental elements. Not long ago I came across a meme on Instagram, that initially displayed the unusual behavior of ants that remain inside a marked boundary, be it with chalk, sugar, or anything else. The narrator goes on to mock this as an “undeveloped” and rather “primitive” behavior that calls for laughs. This is cut to a map of the Earth. Capitalism keeps these boundaries hard, they support this systemic cycle of consumerism driven by fear and social norms that we strive to break out of.
Strike three was when we had less than 20 years to make changes to our environment, after which it would be irreversible. We are long past the “ecological crisis” and now in the “existential crisis” era. This shift was barely noticeable, why, probably capitalism, probably economic differences between countries, rates of growth and exchange becoming larger by the day. What does this mean to us?
We rethink the environment, and we rethink the choices we have made and continue making. We lived through one of the biggest historical milestones in humanity, COVID 19. Firsthand encounters and evaluation of how we performed as a species. We did good, we did our best, we were unprepared but did what we could. But, what after? Was the environment ever a part of the decisions taken or just a side consideration that could be modified as growth demanded?
Governments of most countries withdrew environmental laws so as to boost the declining economy. We panicked, at the first sight of economic decline, capitalistic downfall. We manipulated the only thing that we unquestionably gamble on, the environment. What should have been concerns for the surmounting number of waste products and plastics being produced, was diverted and reduced to having more urgent needs. The environment has always taken a back seat in all the decisions about humanity. India alone saw nearly a million masks being thrown to waste, it was not recycled, nor safely discarded. Left to the morning cleaners to beautify the roads, the masks lay in piles all around the cities. Plexiglass was mass-produced to act as shields in office spaces, because how can offices not function, that would mean an economic crisis, and it would mean people getting time off, no that is the worst thing imaginable. After the pandemic, these plastic products have been left to rot, if only they did. PPE kits, gloves, and toxic wastes, were all blindly manufactured for humanity's needs that did not encompass the environment.
Issues of care such as healthcare infrastructure, support for essential workers, and community well-being were thrust into the spotlight. The pandemic underscored the importance of prioritizing care over profit, highlighting the shortcomings of capitalism in addressing collective needs during crisis.
Care and repair have become a transactional exchange rather than a fundamental aspect of humanity. Often feminized, the concept of care has long been reduced to a gender-centric problem rather than equitable. Caring is meant to be feminine, enforcing and exploiting this power dynamic within existing economies.
Beyond what others can do, authorities can do, the extent of defining an individual's contribution to such atrocities is well documented. This reminds me of the problem posed by Hardin. He talks about how, in a free market, individuals rear sheep to make a profit, when suddenly one person recognizes that he can add more sheep to make more profit. When this becomes a loss, the loss then gets shared amongst the total stakeholders rather than the one who chose to be greedy. Profit is private but loss is public. We experienced this in many forms, including the toilet paper crisis during the pandemic, because some people decided to hoard a common and shared product so much that it ran out of the market. This is in a way attributed to Neo-liberalism, a lifestyle driven by privatization and ownership.
At its core, this concept advocates for deregulation of markets, privatization of public assets, and the pursuit of profit maximization for an individual rather than collective growth. Overfishing, deforestation, and exploitation of fossil fuels to benefit an industry regardless of what impacts it has on surrounding neighborhoods, the local biome and worldwide issues. North Braddock in Pittsburgh has witnessed such oppression from the US Steel Mills. Surrounded by smoke almost always, with high levels of PM2.5 and metal contaminants, the local population has been subject to years of air pollution with no significant reparations. The fines to be paid as per regulations have not reached the community nor has the pollution gone down. This act of prioritizing profits only to one party where the others suffer in silence has been the largest outcome of Neo-liberalism. This lack of accountability leads to environmental and social injustices, disproportionately affecting already subjugated communities.
Is this doomsday approach of calling the issue an “existential crisis” enough or rather efficient in getting action? What are the currently feasible approaches to resolving this problem if we could still make it in time?
When we think of stakeholders to address this issue, we have the community at large and the resources that support them. Suppose there was a way to satisfy the needs and demands of the community yet replenish the finite resources. In that case, we may have a sustainable cycle encouraging environmental protection at its forefront. Social equity, gender equality, and support for caregiving responsibilities help keep these resources in efficient production and usage. This is slightly different from circular economies in a way that it pushes social boundaries to be more accommodating and efficient. Circular economies, on the other hand, focus on minimizing waste and maximizing resource efficiency by closing the loop of production, consumption, and disposal. This aims to keep the products in use for as long as possible through various strategies.
Environmental resiliency is closely linked to social resilience. Communities are largely reliant on such ecological conditions, which enable them to sustain their resources. Governments can provide support by facilitating ecosystem services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, and pollution control. Some governments in Asia have taken to installing solar panels in all the public settings in the city including bus stops and plazas. Such initiatives call for accountability and add credibility to the goal, pushing the public to think about such aspects on the go. This will help the locals gain a sense of stewardship and ownership of their land and environment. By showing such support the people get to intentionally make the right use of their resources and are aware of the consequences it would create.
Preceding all this is culture. It has shaped our beliefs and values about nature from ages unknown and heavily influences how we view nature. Promoting such cultural narratives emphasizes nature’s ways and appreciation as well as acknowledges the resources. Preserving and revitalizing indigenous methodologies that inherently use such sustainable techniques makes it easier and more routine to imbibe such policies.
None of this is possible without collaboration. A universal commons and general sharing of knowledge is required to better equip each country, state, and ward to help each other. Policies need amends that can facilitate such sharing, the coming of age of technological advancements like GIS has immensely increased data collection across borders to be able to study and resolve issues from nowhere near. This is what we must strive to achieve, not repetition but rather iterations of a solution adapted to the needs of the local yet catered to by the global. In a way, cosmolocalism too does contribute to this resilient lifestyle that could break free from capitalism and preserve the only world we know and call home.
We are defining our fate in every passing second, in every long drive we go, in every product bought from Shein, in every Netflix subscription. This is not the end, but will be if we choose to be ignorant and do not actively engage in such practices for the better.
For our most recent article follow the link below :
Follow us for regular updates on all things architecture!
Comments