How To Save the World

Here's draft 3. Getting close to finished. If anyone knows the name of the economist who created the famous theory about the effects of importing food into starving populations, please let me know!

1. THE SURFACE OF THE POND

There is a set of questions about our modern civilization that seems inevitably to arise in each of us who grow up in the First World, usually in early adolescence. These questions will probably feel familiar to you. Why are there starving people when we have so much food? Why are there homeless people when there is so much space? Why are we always fighting wars with each other? Why is there crime, social dysfunction, racism, sexism and other widespread inequality? Why can't we all just, you know, get along?
Of course, most of us come to believe that the answers to these questions are incredibly complex. They tie into economics, sociology, psychology, politics, religion and a mess of other intricate systems that govern the behavior of humans. On a more basic level, though, the teenager who ponders these queries is essentially contemplating one much simpler question: why are we humans so destructive?
As children we are taught that humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. This is what separates us from the other animals, so much so in fact that we don't even refer to them as "other" animals, they are just animals and we are humans, something different entirely.
Imagine for a moment that you are somehow outside of our planet looking in. You didn't grow up here and you have no knowledge of the various species on earth (however, for this example, you do have a thorough knowledge of physical science and ecology). You couldn't tell a human from a tuna egg. Suppose you land on the surface and decide you'd like to meet the locals. Also, you're kind of an elitist, so you'd only care to speak to the most successful species on this planet. Who do you find?
You're going to look at several factors. Population is a main factor. Health of the living population is also a crucial factor, and of course genetic strength should be a key indicator of the species' potential for future success. Obviously a disease-ridden species has a greater chance of suffering loss in future generations as the diseases are passed on. You're also going to look at resource consumption. Is the species consuming resources at roughly the rate at which they replenish? Or is the species using up their resources, and if so, how quickly? Are they fighting just to resolve territorial and mating disputes, or has some of their conflict become arbitrary?
From this outside perspective, humans are not doing particularly well on this planet. We're consuming resources that take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to replenish themselves in just centuries. Our population continues to increase, and the percentage of humans with genetic diseases and deficiencies is sky-high. Every other species on this planet (with partial exceptions for domesticated pets) is subject to natural selection, thus their genetics are almost perfect. A weaker animal dies younger and therefore doesn't usually reproduce, whereas weaker humans are kept alive with medical technology and then have the opportunity to pass on their weaker genetics. Any outsider looking in would probably assume that our species was on the brink of disaster. (A quick aside: some of the more successful species are earthworms, bacteria and spiders).
Obviously this is not what we want for ourselves as a species, yet we pursue the perpetuation of this status quo relentlessly. Of course, we don't see things this way. From our perspective, success means the highest possible survival rate for our species in every generation. It is widely assumed that, as our resources diminish, we will simply devise new ways to extract, conserve or synthesize them. We're far too clever to actually go extinct, right?
Perhaps this is true. If so, we have nothing to worry about. We will simply devise more and more ingenuitive solutions until we colonize Mars, synthesize food and petroleum efficiently out of raw hydrogen and carbon, and cure all disease.
The viewpoint that we humans will thrive no matter what is commonly shared in the First World, though realistically it is quite religious. It is clear to anyone who has some familiarity with our situation that humans coming out of the next few generations without severe loss of life is quite unlikely. There's no scientific breakthrough on the horizon that will provide us with food and clean water out of thin air, yet many choose to believe that this is inevitable. There's an undercurrent of religion here: the unspoken idea that we humans are Gods and cannot fail. It is our destiny to prosper. Perhaps this is so. Perhaps not.

PART 2: THE VIEW FROM THE TIP OF THE PYRAMID

Currently our society (planetwide, not any particular country) is arranged in a pyramidal fashion. The vast MINority of the population resides at the tip of the pyramid with the vast MAJority of our resources and wealth. About 10% of the world's population controls almost 85% of its wealth (2006, World Institute for Development Economics Research). The very tip of the pyramid is populated with CEOs, powerful politicians, old-money families and elite criminals. Many of these categories, of course, overlap. They are mostly thinkers, decision-makers, rulers and ringleaders.
As we drop down the pyramid we find a tiny portion of "middle class" people. We exist here in America, in Europe, Canada, Australia, the U.K., parts of the Middle East and Asia and elsewhere in very small numbers. The middle class often arises when a nation is very prosperous and there are very few people in charge. If those few keep the rest of the nation doing manual labor, they will eventually revolt. The middle class creates a buffer between the elite and the impoverished. The impoverished have something to work toward, a decent life that seems (and sometimes is) actually attainable. The middle class are comfortable enough that revolt doesn't seem necessary, and the status quo continues.
Most of the pyramid consists of impoverished peoples. These folks grow all of our food and produce all of our goods. They man our factories and fields, toiling away endlessly, working only toward the goal of feeding their families for one more day. They have no opportunity for advancement (except in very rare and often glamorized cases) and will likely die in exactly the same village where they were born, with no inheritance to pass on to their children.
Ironically, the bottom of the pyramid has all the power. Without production of food, goods and services, the top of the pyramid cannot function. Obviously those in power are hardly willing to don gloves and start growing their own food, so they cannot persist without the dis-empowered labor force. The same goes for the middle class. We rely heavily on the impoverished peoples of the world, but we hardly like to address this fact.
Let's look at an oft-used example of this pyramid situation. Let's say you go to the grocery store and buy some eggs. No big deal, right? Well, take a moment to think about how those eggs came to be there. Let's start with the store itself. You have the stockboys, the janitors, the checkers, the managers. Remember that they all have to eat. Now add in the people who unloaded the truck with the eggs, and those who drove it. Also you've got the coordinators of the delivery, not to mention the mechanics who keep the truck running. The truck itself was probably built in a huge factory somewhere, and at least some of the parts almost certainly came from overseas. Someone had to make those parts, load them into an airplane, the plane had to be flown over, etc. The truck, of course, came from the farm. All the farm workers now have to be factored in, the food that they consume, and of course the food for the chickens. Now consider that, out of all these people eating, most of them are probably not buying local produce. So take into account the thousands of people growing THEIR food somewhere in the Third World, plus all the people it takes to ship it up here, the food that THEY'RE eating, and all the people growing THAT food. Suddenly your box of eggs has involved a significant number of people, easily in the tens of millions.
You could keep going along this line, adding in the people who manufactured the parts for the farm equipment, the petroleum consumed by everyone driving to work, the production of the egg carton, and on and on. I think I've made my point, though. It is impossible in the modern world to live "alone". You are ALWAYS part of a vast human community, whether you like it or not. If you want to eat, you need the help of others - unless you go live completely off-the-grid, which I assume you're not doing if you're reading this.
This is one of the reasons that it's so hard to manage resource consumption in modern civilization. If we suddenly abandoned our pyramid, abandoned government and world community, what would happen? Let's pretend, for this example, that this scenario happens totally peacefully. Every world leader suddenly wakes up with a heart that's grown two sizes, and decides to destroy all of his weapons and give all the land back to the people. Result? Those on top of the pyramid suddenly have no one to produce their resources for them, and have a very hard time. Those at the bottom, admittedly with some fairly major adjustment, are still in a much better position: they are already growing food. So they eat it. In reality, the situation is far more complex, but the impoverished are still in a far better position than the rich. They are capable of production, not just oversight and consumption. They also (usually) have tightly knit communities. They know everyone in their village and they all help each other survive. This is somewhat less likely to happen at the tip of the pyramid.
So, it becomes obvious here that one major goal of those in power is to keep this system in place. We, the rich, are far better off keeping the poor producing for us while we reap the rewards. None of us really like to think about it that way, but that's how it is. Slavery never ended, it was simply outsourced to the third world. Sure, many of our field workers are technically "free", but are they really? They may not be chained, but they have neither the economic ability nor the educational resources to actually make it out of their field. Besides, as I illustrated before, there's only so much room up here. If every field & factory worker were to defy the odds, get an education and come to the first world, there would no longer be any food here, because no one would be growing it. Thus we rely absolutely on each other to live. It is, however, a fragile existence.

3. THEN AND NOW: AN INCREDIBLY BRIEF HISTORY OF HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS

Have things always been this way? Of course not. Anthropologists are not certain, but it is widely believed that we evolved into our current state (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) about 200,000 years ago (2005, National Science Foundation). At this point, we were hunting & gathering almost exclusively. Humans lived in small nomadic communities. We were an incredibly successful species. The actual work done by a hunter-gatherer is believed to have taken about three hours of her day (2000, Hans-Joachim Voth). The rest of her time was spent socializing, playing, perhaps practicing survival skills or courting a mate. Based on all our modern observations of the few indigenous peoples who have managed to survive, they are incredibly healthy, happy, well-adjusted people. There is almost no evidence of currently-common psychological disorders such as depression, OCD, social anxiety and so on.
As time went on, we developed more and more "culture", as evidenced in the Native American tribes that we westerners all read about in school. Humans were dancing, singing, making art and thriving. Of course, when I say thriving I refer to quality of life; our population during this period was rather consistent. It was perhaps growing slowly, but nothing like our remarkable explosion of numbers in recent generations.
With respect to Daniel Quinn, an author who writes much on this subject, let's take a look at a few basic "rules" that we humans used to abide by before agriculture.
1. We shared resources with our competitors. The modern farmer, for example, builds a fence around his crop and shoots any fox or coyote who comes too close. He sets snares for rabbits and sprays pesticide on his plants. Before modern civilization, we very well had the ability to build fences and to kill animals, but we didn't use these skills to monopolize a food supply. We would perhaps kill a wolf who got close to us, but we would never send out raiding parties to kill ALL the wolves in an area so that they couldn't get at our rabbits. If food became scarce, we would simply migrate to where it was plentiful, thus allowing the food supply in the previous area to replenish.
2. We operated as independent tribes, not as a world-human-community. For example, if a nearby tribe was experiencing famine, it was not common practice to rush over food to feed them. Economists observe that a population of animals will always grow to the point that its resources allow. If the population outgrows its food supply, a few will starve until the demand matches the supply and balance is struck. However, if outside food is brought in, famine will continue indefinitely because no one will starve. The population will continue to grow even as starvation becomes more widespread.***CITE*** See Africa.
3. We were not completely anthro-centric. In modern society, human life is valued over all other life. The extinction of various species is simply a price we must pay to sustain our population. It hardly even comes into consciousness that perhaps some of us should die so that other creatures can survive. This mentality is carried to extreme degrees, even using the planet's resources to keep alive people who are in comas and vegetative states. Such individuals are consuming fresh water, food and petroleum (in the form of electricity), but it is absolutely unacceptable for us to let any of them die. Human death is to be avoided at all costs.
About 10,000 years ago, a shift occurred. The concept of imperialism entered our consciousness. We shifted from living subject to nature to living as rulers of nature. Since then, we've consumed more than half the Earth's petroleum, consumed or polluted much of our fresh water, consumed to near-extinction many of our food supplies (e.g. Buffalo), destroyed countless ecosystems (e.g. the rain forest), and brought our population up to nearly its breaking point.
Of course, we've reaped much reward for our efforts. We have warm, safe shelters, we no longer have to move around so much, we are at little to no risk from natural predators, our lifespan is greatly increased, we can enjoy luxuries like travel, movies, television, processed food and general gluttony.
Have we really reaped these rewards, though? You and I, here in the First World, get to enjoy these luxuries every day. However, most of the world's human population works to sustain this reality for us. About 90% of the people on earth will never travel for pleasure, own a computer or experience an overabundance of resources (2010, Worldwatch Institute). Though we do live longer, most of us spend our lives, as I said, working in fields or factories, with little or no opportunity for advancement.
And as we discovered before, there is no way to change this without revamping the entire system - there simply isn't enough room at the top or middle of the pyramid for nearly seven billion of us.
So why do we hear so little about this problem?

4. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH

It would be difficult to effectively refute the points made so far in this pamphlet, but most will nevertheless try. The majority of educated people understand the concept of the pyramidal structure of society, yet one never hears of any plans to dismantle it. Why is this?
Our efforts to save the world come in many forms. There are environmentalists, who push for policies that will protect our remaining natural resources, but never at the expense of human life. There are activists who advocate change in the political structure, but never at the expense of human life. There are scientists who pursue technological breakthroughs that will allow us to sustain our species ...but never at the expense of human life. It would seem that all of those who aim to save the world believe that this plan must include all 6.8 billion of us. They are well-intentioned, but completely unable to step outside of their human-centric view of the world.
The reality is, if our population were to stay exactly the same (which is incredibly unlikely), we would still be in dire straits. If our population continues to grow as it has been growing, we will run out of key resources in just a handful of generations (take a look at WWI's State Of The World report). In other words- short of a scientific miracle- if we all live, we will all soon die.
Many experts speculate that the most likely scenario is world war. As resources like petroleum and clean water get to desperately low levels, we will begin to fight over them (even more than we already are). Eventually large-scale war will break out. If we are very lucky, nuclear war will be avoided, and only most of us will die. Otherwise, it would only take a relatively small nuclear war to devastate the ecosystem and severely damage global food production, causing widespread loss of human life (American Geophysical Union 2006).
In light of this information, one would expect activist groups to arise with ideas that could actually save our species in the long run. And they do, but they are branded anarchists and terrorists and quickly dismissed. This is because ANY PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A 100% SHORT-TERM SURVIVAL RATE FOR HUMANS IS UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR CULTURE. The idea that our numbers should be allowed to dwindle until they match the resources we have is out of the question. If one single person needed to die to save the entire species, we would likely still resist. We see ourselves as Gods and our lives as invaluable. There is no "cycle of life" for humans, we do not return to the earth and feed the trees. We live forever. We are immortal.
Daniel Quinn puts it very succinctly when he describes our drive to conquer. Culture never directly states that we are imperialists over the natural world, but how often do you hear tales of our dominance? Humans have conquered space, we've conquered the moon, we've conquered the oceans, we've conquered the atom. We strive constantly for more and more dominance over the natural world. Whether we have the right to do so is never even vaguely questioned by our culture. This is our planet, and we can do what we want with it. Deforestation, oil drilling, housing developments built over marshland - these are often put to a vote. It never comes to a vote, though, whether we even have the right to vote on these things to begin with. Is it really OUR marsh to destroy? Well, if the majority of us think so, then yes. This is how we see things.
The human-centricity of our culture is so ubiquitous that most of us don't even notice it. Our whole lives, day to day, minute to minute, thought to thought are centered on ourselves and other people. Once in a rare while we notice the breeze, the sunshine, a little bird flitting by - but these things are not part of OUR world, they are from a SEPARATE world - "nature". According to our culture, nature is something outside of the human world, something to exploit or appreciate or save from afar, but never from within.
This type of thinking is truly the ONLY obstacle to the survival of our species. Because we are so attached to our own value, we refuse to entertain many viable options for improving the state of our species and of the world for generations to come. Obviously the options that we ARE entertaining have done little to nothing to reduce our population or slow its growth, so it seems logical that we would step outside the box and consider more "extreme" options. Contrary to popular belief, though, we are not a logical people. We are religious fanatics, believing in the divinity of human life beyond all other life, willing to chase this fantasy all the way to our own extinction.

5. THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL

Is there no hope for us, then? Nay, there is always hope. We must start fighting the right battles, though.
There is no solution that will preserve civilization as we know it. Civilization is dedicated to the consumption of the very resources which sustain it. It is not a perpetual motion machine, rather it is a candle flame, gradually consuming the very fuel that gives it life.
Therefore to save the world and our species, modern civilization must be abandoned. We must return to being subject to nature rather than its ruler. How, though, is this change to be accomplished? Most humans are so attached to civilization that they would lay down their very lives in the name of its preservation. Nature-centric perspectives are laughed at. Just stupid hippie shit, right?
Therefore what must be shifted is our consciousness. Until we begin to perceive our role in the world ecosystem, we will be powerless to alter it. If we continue to live out our little lives in our tiny worlds, continue to fight to change political policy that is all essentially the same anyways (anthrocentric), there is no hope for greater change. However, if people begin to understand the ways in which we are connected to each other and to the resources of our planet, potential for a positive shift arises.
Writers like Quinn and Zerzan are essential to precipitate such change, but they accomplish little or nothing if we don't act upon their teachings. Unless we become willing to actually recreate our day-to-day lives, even making personal sacrifices for the greater good, the status quo will persist.
What changes can be made on a personal level? Most simply, the very topic of this pamphlet can be discussed. Just bringing these concepts into general discourse will cause more people to ponder them, and perhaps a few of these people will change the conclusions they've come to regarding civilization. If we simply take time to think about our state of being as a species and our relationship with nature, the chances of progress increase rapidly.
Ideas spread like viruses. Look how quickly we went from coexistent hunter-gatherers to imperialists. This type of transformation can happen literally overnight. Once enough people become conscious of a certain reality, a tipping point is reached and it becomes widely known.
In fact, if you are seeking a more direct way to act, there are options. Already there are communities of people trying their best to live in accord with nature. These off-the-grid "communes" exist in Hawaii, Northern California, Oregon, India and other places. They are often difficult to find as they function without electricity or any access to mass communication, but to the noble seeker they will present themselves. The stronger and more prosperous these communities become, the more attractive they will become, and the more the idea of their lifestyle will spread.
A quick caveat: beware of communes that rely on resources from outside their territory. Although their level of participation in the global ecosystem is probably much reduced, it still exists. Especially beware of communities that rely on electricity or running water. These are basically glorified cabin retreats, and often consume resources at a much higher rate than average, though admittedly lower than the average First-World community.
Essentially, hope for humanity rests in you. It is entirely up to you to step outside your cultural mindset and be truly rational and analytical in your thinking about our species and its survival. It is up to you to encourage your peers to think similarly and even just to pique the interest of those who may become more open down the line. As our resources dwindle and our situation becomes worse, people will become more desperate and more likely to be open to non-traditional solutions. This is our opportunity to reach out and try to share the concept of a nature-centric way of life with our fellow humans.
I strongly encourage you to do your own reading, research and thinking about the topics I've discussed here. If you disagree strongly with a point in this pamphlet, play out both sides of the argument and see where you end up. Really analyze and be open to new ideas. Challenge yourself. Come to your own conclusions. Perhaps this is all bullshit, but if not, you will understand and internalize it far more thoroughly if you delve into it yourself rather than just taking my word for it.
Above all, connect with the world around you. Be aware of what you're consuming on a daily basis, how much time & energy you're giving to the world and to your peers, how much you're receiving. Notice when you consume resources that you don't really need, and notice whether you feel fulfilled after doing so. Be aware of your excess, of how much you have rather than what you want or need. Compare yourself to a Third-World citizen and look at your life in that perspective. Open your eyes. Soak it in.
The human race is on the brink of extinction, and these coming years may be our last chance to save it. May the sun shine on us all.