Trickle-Down Environmentalism versus Ecosystemic Empathy
A Meditation on the Occasion of the World Social Forum
28 & 29 January 2003
Porto Alegre, Brazil
pattrice jones
“No, the waters and the mountains do not belong to the mens. But how do we tell that to Bush and Blair?”
I’m at the Fórum Social Mundial and have no answer for the Brazilian musician who earnestly poses that question after admiring the Alice Walker quotation on my t-shirt. How indeed, I wonder, when even the people who are talking back to Bush and Blair do not understand that basic fact.
These days, most progressive environmentalists endorse what might be called the ‘trickle-down’ theory of environmental justice. Just as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have asserted that the self-interested choices of rich people ultimately help all of the other economic classes, today’s global justice advocates assert that the self-interested choices of “the people” will ultimately help all of the other species on earth. Both theories amount to little more than wishful thinking. Trickle-down economics was and remains a fantasy that justifies individual selfishness without regard for economic realities. Similarly, the ‘power-to-the-people’ theory of environmental justice is an illusion that justifies species selfishness without regard for ecological realities.
I guess most of the activists attending FSM would be disconcerted to hear themselves characterized as self-centered or out of synch with the ecosystem. But from the perspective of concern for all beings, their relentless preoccupation with people, people, people seems extremely egocentric. Water pollution? Only a concern because it hurts people. Desertification? Only a problem because people are thirsty. GMOs? Problematic only because either they or their impacts on ecosystems might hurt people. Violence? Only a problem when directed against people. The solution to each and every one of those environmental problems? Put the power in the hands of “the people.”
An advertisement for a FSM workshop exemplifies this attitude. There is a cartoon of a family in swimming suits, looking sad because their holiday plans have gone awry. The father complains that “our favorite waterfall doesn’t belong to the people anymore.” Barbed wire installed by a corporation prevents them or anyone else from approaching the river and waterfall. The thwarted swimming party — rather than, for example, the thirst of the animals who will no longer be able to reach their usual source of water — is the primary focus of concern. The solution to the terrible problem of the obstructed outing is spelled out in the headline of the poster: “WATER IN PEOPLES HANDS!”
This poster hangs on the outside wall of a campus cafe in which activists are relaxing and refreshing themselves. A scrawny, mangy dog — one of the many living ghosts who haunt the venues of the World Social Forum — lies outside, panting in the midday sun, too weak to even get up and move into the shade. Environmental justice activists, many carrying water bottles in their hands, walk by without noticing or stopping to offer a drink to this obviously thirsty animal.
WATER IN PEOPLES HANDS!? Who, other than people, has created dead zones in the oceans and polluted rivers and streams? What species uses more than half of all freshwater, leaving all of the remaining species to survive (or not) on the dregs? Who, other than people, is responsible for the climate change that has already irrevocably altered the natural history of the world’s waters? If not people, then who is responsible for the destruction of more than half of all wetlands on the planet? Who, other than people, has driven countless birds, fish, amphibians and plants into extinction by changing or taking the water on which their lives depended?
WATER IN PEOPLES HANDS!? People are the problem! Corporations and communities are just different types of collections of people. “WATER IN PEOPLES HANDS” means shifting the power from one group of people to another. The fundamental fallacies — the notion that water somehow ‘belongs’ to people and the conviction that homo sapiens, as just one of the billions of plant and animal species dependent on water for life, has the sole right to control this vital resource — remain unchallenged. With those dangerous ideas still operative, it’s unlikely that the new bosses of the water would be any more responsible than the old. They might ensure that people (or at least their favored subset of people) would get enough, but their ‘people own the world’ attitude virtually guarantees that they would not take into account the needs of other species, unless those species happened to be deemed useful to humans. Thus, collective ‘ownership’ of water would be only slightly less likely to result in ecosystemic disaster than private or corporate ownership.
Private and corporate control of water are just the latest logical extensions of age-old human attitudes and practices. All of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are founded on the very convenient conviction that “man” has the right and the duty to exercise dominion over the land and the other animals. While some indigenous religions do not accord such unique privileges to humans, other indigenous faiths of the past and present do share the opportune opinion that people occupy a superior position and/or exercise special rights.
The fiction of the FSM is that people, unfettered by states and corporations, will always make smart and just decisions and thus can be trusted to chart the course for all life on this planet. There’s no evidence for this fantasy and plenty of evidence against it. Looking at the thirsty dogs at the World Social Forum, I wonder: If even the most self-consciously progressive among us cannot be trusted to share water with our species’ most long-standing and loyal companions, how can we trust that “the people” in all their diversity will elect to apportion water with wisdom and compassion?
We say “Our world is not for sale,” and by this we mean that natural resources ought not be owned by private entities. “Ownership” is essentially the effective expression of exclusive control and is generally established by some act of actual or threatened private or state violence. Barb wire tears skin. Security guards carry guns and clubs.
Having challenged the idea of “ownership,” are we willing to go further and question the assumption that “the people” as a collective have the right to possess or control natural resources? If we truly believe that mountains and rivers belong to everyone, aren’t we obliged to question the bizarre system of accounting wherein “everyone” includes only humans? If we truly believe that it’s not possible to “own” a tree, then aren’t we obliged to question the idea that it’s possible to own a tree frog? Or a dog?
In short, aren’t we honor bound to find a way to liberate the water from the control of its corporate captors without selfishly claiming the control for ourselves? How could we do that? We can’t consult consult the other animals or the plants. Or, can we? Could we, perhaps, enter into such empathic relationships with them that we could be trusted to take their interests into account when planning our actions? Could we observe them with such care and precision that we could accurately conclude what they might like us to do? Could we invite people who recognize and relate to animals as fellow beings (rather than property) to represent their interests when we gather to make decisions at events like the World Social Forum?
We could and should do those things. It’s too late to undo the damage that generations of people have done, but it may not be too late to learn enough to stop the ongoing destruction. Then we — the people and the plants and the animals — can begin to build another world — together.
The Alice Walker quotation that provoked this meditation? “The animals of the world exist for their own purposes. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.” The same holds true for the water and the flowers and the land.
