In reference to Paul Pojman's book: Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application
According to Paul Pojman the primary problem with capitalism is that it is a boundless system seeking infinite growth. This economic system drives many of the major nations of the world and as a result there are constant interests toward expansion of financial interests, technological developments and gamesmanship across any field and sector. With regard to environmental concerns that materialize from this analysis of capitalism, it is clear how consumerism and the constant shuffling to create more, conquer more, and own more, has led to an ignorance of the urgency we as a species are faced with. Most importantly to nearly everyone, is the fact that natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and the optimism one might hold for the future is diminishing year by year. When considering this notion of depletion and destruction, that is seemingly conceived by capitalism itself, I consider my own position as someone who enjoys a stroll through nature and who likes to indulge in the smells and the aesthetic quality of a nicely composed garden. Although I don’t like to think that gardens will disappear forever, I still manage to place myself in a context where every natural environment is no longer natural or of a natural conception but instead artificial and having the touch of a designer. There is something monotonous and somber in this idea. I hope that generations of people will be able to frolic and enjoy the subtle elegance of nature and all it has to offer and teach. This being my personal experience I can relate to the degree of urgency that seems prevalent in not only the words of Pojman, but many environmentalists and speakers in general. It seems that our capitalist societies have, embedded in them, an innate drive for progress and advancement, of which I am no doubt a part of. However, this driving force of capitalism needs realignment. The constant cycle of progress and depression seems boring, redundant and antiquated. There are many other important things in life besides profit and economic surplus. Even the idea of a stationary state, where growth is equally offset by consumerism has its limits in human nature.
It is clear today that many adverse effects exist in relation to capitalism. Obviously the environment, natural resources, pollution, consumerism are all downsides in the long term created by capitalism. However, perhaps the most important ideal that is tarnished through capitalism is the human psyche. The impact on humans in how they live out their daily lives cannot be mitigated when we consider the fact that capitalism asks all of its collaborators to enter into a never ending cycle of work. The basic human instinct to survive is replaced, in capitalism - perhaps through societal delusion or something else - by an innate desire to work and be used. It seems the growth of corporations has expanded beyond even a scaler human understanding and even the highest paid employees of any company or inherently undervalued. People have become products themselves and the idea that environmental sustainability has somehow been lost parallels a loss in the quality of life that many people enjoy. If we consider, for example, a nomadic family who erects a tent to battle the harshness of a tundra in order to survive, moving every four days. How does their livelihood compare to that of the president of a company. Who seems more free and more in balance with their surroundings? In my opinion it is that person of a simpler disposition and setting. The other is a slave to a system not of their own creation. In contrast, the nomad is at one with the system they have created. Perhaps the answer lies in this notion; finding equilibrium, despite hardship, with the environment and systems we engage with. The solution to this balance is fraught still with much opposition.
Pojman argues that a system built with its sole desire of maximizing profits cannot have a soul. This soul is required in order to holistically pursue the desired green or sustainable solutions that are sought after by some. The difficulty to have both lies in the question of or and not and. However drastic the measures that are needed to achieve a degree of sustainability in our daily practices, whether that be architecture or just consumption of goods in general, it is obvious that capitalism itself does not nurture this pursuit and compromise will soon be necessary if it is not too late already. Additionally, as we seek a more sustainable future, it seems there are many innovations that are actually having the opposite of intended impacts within their situation as capital elements. For example, the author brings up the issue of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency in building systems and automobiles. Pojman points out that these sensationalized attempts at harnessing sustainable practices are diluted by competition and capitalist tendencies to sell the most product and increase use. As a result, these products that offset some kind of leeching in the current environment only prove to create larger disparities in long term carbon footprints as different materials are farmed and consumers use more under the guise of helping the environment. Another example that I have come in touch with is the notion of machine learning in the design process. The carbon footprint on energy and time usage for designing computational and simulation techniques in green buildings could actually have adverse effects on the overall carbon footprint as we refine more and more our design iterations to find the perfect most sustainable option, only to create huge carbon footprints from energy use and computer memory storages. These dichotomous solutions seem to riddle the very fabric of capitalism and the solution seems one of systematic and not point source change.
The essay suggests that the gradual transition to a new economic system is both possible and essential. I agree and I think this is possible. We are encountering new technologies and practices everyday. The emergence of entrepreneurs and social activists has been bolstered thanks to the interconnectivity of society. Our ability to collaborate is unrivaled by any other time. Although the changes that are necessary to transition our society to the next realm of possibilities is a large leap forward, we have the tools to accomplish such a feat. However it will take a new and open minded generation of philanthropists, collective minded individuals, and the willingness to forsake greed in order to to find balance within a newly conceived system that is of our own making and which we have agency to make changes necessary for the betterment of our global ecosystem and global human psyche.
As a future professional in the industry, do you have an ethical obligation to seek projects and companies that favor environmental and social justice over financial expansion? What is an example of a situation you may face involving these conflicting ethical values?
The obvious answer is yes. However, our societal and economic system do not value these kinds of projects or ethical frameworks. A young and emerging professional does not benefit personally from taking on these projects either. Unfortunately, to survive in this world you must forsake certain aspects of your ethics in design to be able to stand up, at least early on in your career. In order for these kinds of projects to be valued over financial expansion it seems some kind of social collective libertarianism must be adopted that emphasizes a holistic approach to the conservation of our societies and ecologies. One clear example of this ethical dilemma in play is building a huge manufacturing plant overseas that benefits no one but the manufacturer and its' distributors. This kind of project seeks no alternative for its methods or technologies and serves only to increase consumerism in some foreign place as well as sap the natural resources from its context in order to more cheaply or quickly deliver goods. I hope to not be in a position where I will work on a project such as this one, but if I had to I would ask to work on a different project or frankly, I would begin searching for a new firm to work for. Although money is important for survival there is a saying that goes “I feel bad for a man that is so poor that all he has is money”.
Comments