(This is Part 29 of a series. Go back to Part 28.)
Finally, in 1994, the powder keg in Rwanda exploded. Urged on by cynical political leaders, the increasing violence of all types first molted into a civil war between Hutus and Tutsis and then devolved into a massive slaughter where approximately 800,000 Tutsis were hunted down and killed. (This was the subject of the movie Hotel Rwanda.)
A horrific example, we might say, but what does that have to do with the earth as a whole? After all, Rwanda's soil was mostly denuded and suffering from draught, and that's not the case with the earth. Moreover, Rwanda had a history of ethnic violence which makes it something of a special case.
All true. But to me the similarities in the comparison might be more important than the differences. And the basic similarity, to me, is this: Rwanda was in ecological overshoot and so is the earth. Yes there are differences, and yes, Rwanda was in greater ecological overshoot than the earth now is. However:
傍he earth's ecological overshoot rises each year.
傍he earth is in an epidemic of deforestation.
傍he earth is suffering huge overall soil erosion.
傍he earth is becoming much warmer and drier.
傍he earth is losing its vast underground aquifers.
傍he earth is now 1/3 desert; desertification is rising.
傍he human race has a history of violence of all kinds.
If these trends were to continue, the planet could, down the road, find itself in a situation not totally dissimilar to Rwanda's.
There seems to be a general progression that often happens:
1. A society goes into ecological overshoot.
All goes on as before; nothing much changes for awhile.
2. The society goes into more severe overshoot.
Signals of ecological, and eventually economic, stress show up.
These signals are either ignored or acted upon.
If the signals are acted upon, and acted upon in time:
3a. The society goes increasingly towards sustainability.
If signals are mostly ignored or effective action is delayed:
3b. Chaos, violence and breakdown increasingly show up.
What does seem clear is this: When a society goes into ecological overshoot, stresses of various kinds inevitably show up庸orms of ecological, economic and/or geopolitical instability. If those stresses become great enough they will without doubt resolve at some point. The question is what that resolution will look like.
If the stresses on the ecological system have been resolved through intelligent foresight and action, as in the examples of Tikopia and Tokugawa Japan, the situation can look enormously promising. It means that the overall state of things is going towards sustainability.
However, if the stresses on the system are not resolved in time by far-sighted human action they will resolve on their own, guided by natural biological processes. And that latter type of resolution is very likely to appear indifferent to human welfare.
Back to our metaphor of the ship on the ocean: The greater the velocity and momentum of the ship, the more important it becomes to look as far ahead as possible, or to put it another way, the more important it becomes to consider the situation and act upon it from a long-term, rather than short-term, timeframe.
(This is the end of Part 29. Go to Part 30.)
曜im sloman, 5.31.07
|
