Affluence, Meaning, and Sustainability

This inquiry started out by asking why societies, once they have achieved affluence, almost inevitably decline? Why, in other words, when life becomes more or less satisfying for a large group of people, does it not continue indefinitely? One answer, of course, is that their lifestyle may exhaust the resources required to sustain it. However affluent societies such as Rome or Egypt or colonial England did not fail from a want of resources. There appears to be something in human nature that cannot tolerate continued affluence. If this is the case, is there something in us that will not abide the continuity of an ample or adequate sustainable society? We have, I believe, tacitly assumed that once a sustainable society is attained it will persist for long periods. My question is whether human nature is consistent with this expectation. If not, how will human nature have to be modified and can that modification be reasonably expected within the time frame it has to take place?

Near the heart of this question is whether human beings are psychologically equipped to live in a sustainable society over the long haul. There is, I think, a proclivity for violence in human nature that is inimical to a persistently sustainable society. We see this sublimated in so many of the sports we are attracted to.

I will use war as a paradigm in examining this question because war is a most grievous example of sustainability destruction. In his book War is a Force That Gives Our Life Meaning Chris Hedges examines why, despite all we know of the horrors of war, do we continue to engage in them? He notes General George S. Patton famously said, "Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, I do love it so!" Hedges is concerned in this book to demonstrate the vast range of this sentiment. Thus that vaunted human goal 'meaning in life' can itself be an enemy of mankind. Is it any wonder that we abandon peace, presumably a condition of sustainability, so readily and so frequently?

There is a literature on the psychology of sustainability to be found on the web. An article I found to be particularly useful is Psychology of Sustainability Embodying Cyclic Environmental Processes. It may be found at http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/psychsus.php.

From a sustainability point of view, war has a major impact. Aside from all its other horrors, it consumes monumental amounts of the earth's resources, it destroys vast stretches of the environment, it destroys the ability of humans to cooperate in maintaining the only environment they have. Thus, it is not a trivial ecological matter. If we are to have a sustainable human environment we must find a way to avoid war.

How can we expect a society focused on sustainability to deal with war? One scenario with a good deal of historical precedent is that the restrictions that sustainability may place on society, e.g. greatly reduced consumption, continuously calculated relationships to the natural environment, accompanied by reduced choices, will induce an increasing sense of frustration as masses of humans must live at a consumption level much lower than their predecessors. The Japanese entered World War II not to feed a starving population, but to acquire the resources to become a world power. The United States did not attack Iraq to maintain a sustainable society, but to establish a new imperialism.

While I chose war as a paradigm for discussing sustainability's problem with human nature, there are others, e.g. our untrammeled desire for novelty. We have large portions of our economy built on this desire (lust?). How much of our sense of identity is built on being "better" than others, e.g. keeping up with the Joneses, the latest model car, etc. Again, large portions of our economy are built on this desire.

While I see no resolution to this conflict between sustainability and human nature especially within the time frame it must be achieved, there is, perhaps, some modicum of hope in the observation found in the above-noted article, i.e. "re-defining "sanity" as if the whole world mattered." (My italics) With a sustained, pervasive, focus on the planet as a whole, thus mitigating the differences among us, we may establish our identity as citizens of the earth grateful for our home in the universe and loath to fighting over it. After all, homeland, motherland and fatherland have been powerful sources of allegiance for humans. Why not earthland?

Bob Newhard