To: 
Re:  
Date:
nature@nature.com 
The struggle for survival and advantage in his "socio-economic environment" is now threatening man's survival in the physical environment
Wednesday 29 September 04

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Despite general acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and of man's animal origins, the implications, even amongst scientists, have barely sunk in. We still look at ourselves, society, the economy and history as if our animal origins and nature had little to do with them.

 

As Earth's "Greatest Ape", we are still a very long way from being the rational human beings we like to imagine ourselves as. We use much of our undeniable intelligence in rationalising our irrational behaviour and deluding ourselves into believing that we are far wiser and more knowing than we actually are.

 

Man's scientific and technological achievements are literally mind-boggling, which has blinded us all the more to our terrible human, social and political failings, so numerous and overwhelming that it is difficult to get any kind of a handle on them.

 

The reason is that we are still very largely bound and governed by our "more animal than human " nature, not just as individuals, but also through social and economic structures which, naturally enough, are still rooted in it.

 

Like all animals, we are programmed to struggle for survival and advantage in the natural environment. However, the advent of civilisation resulted in this struggle being increasingly transferred to a man-made, socio-economic environment. This has had profound consequences, which are now threatening our physical survival.

 

Individuals and groups of individuals (families, companies, etc., even nations) struggle for survival and advantage within the socio-economic environment (which nowadays generally boils down to making money in the local, national or global economy), with little or no consideration for the natural environment - upon which ultimately everything depends.

 

Protecting and maintaining the natural environment and the long-term ability of our planet to support us (we will soon be 7-9 billion), should, of course, be our absolute priority. The reason it is not is because we are preoccupied with the struggle for survival and advantage in the socio-economic environment, which for us has effectively taken its place.

 

Scientists are no exception, each struggling for "success" in their own particular field. We rationalise our behaviour, convincing ourselves that we are working for a higher purpose (and to varying degrees, I am sure, many of us are - at least in part), but underlying much of what we do is nevertheless a good measure of our "more animal than human " nature, struggling (competing) for (academic) survival and advantage in the socio-economic environment (scientific community).

 

The more the planet's "Greatest Ape" struggles (competes) for survival and advantage in the socio-economic environment, the greater the drain and strain he is placing on Earth's limited resources and finite carrying capacity. For the past 30 odd years our more enlightened human nature has become increasingly aware and concerned about the consequences. Our "more animal than human" nature responded, unfortunately, very successfully, by rationalising the conflict away and burying our heads in the sand.  

 

Everyone has heard about "the straw that broke the camel's back " - and perhaps wondered, "whose straw was to blame?"

 

Paradoxically the answer is, "no one's and everyone's".

 

But that is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.

 

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we can be sure that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

 

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent economy and multibillion dollar credit and advertising industries.

 

That may take a while to sink in, because it is difficult recognising the "insanities of normality", which we have all grown up with, especially when so much (income, lifestyle, aspirations, etc.) depends on them.

 

We urgently need a rough, working definition of what constitutes a "straw" and an estimate of how many the camel's back (our planet) can support, because we don't want to go anywhere near that limit. Not unless we are completely mad.

 

Also, we need to think about and discuss the degree of "fairness" with which this limited number of straws should be allocated amongst Earth's 6 (soon 7-9) billion human inhabitants, because allowing the amoral, market-based free-for-all we have at the moment to continue is taking us inexorably towards catastrophe.