David P. Turner / February 16, 2020
The peer-reviewed literature and the popular media today abound with concern about human-induced global environmental change. Articles often argue that global scale problems require global scale solutions: humanity is causing the problem and “we” must rapidly implement solutions. Environmental psychologists have found that people who sympathize with or identify with a group are energized to support its cause. Can a majority of human beings identify with humanity in a way that motivates collective change towards global sustainability?
Let’s consider several key constraining factors and unifying factors relevant to making humanity a “we” with respect to global environmental change.
Notable sociopolitical factors that impede global solidarity include the following.
1. Climate Injustice among Nations
In the process of their development, the most developed countries burned through a vast amount of fossil fuel and harvested a large proportion of their primary forests, hence causing most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But these countries are now asking the developing countries to share equally in the effort to curtail global fossil fuel emissions and deforestation to prevent further climate change. At the same time, the impacts of climate change will tend to fall most heavily on the developing countries because of their lower capacity for adaptation. The developing countries are pushing back on the basis of fairness, e.g. the outcome of the Kyoto protocol (albeit now obsolete) was that only the developed countries made commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Rising Nationalism
Economists generally agree that economic globalization has spurred the global economy and helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. However, globalization of the labor market beginning around 1990 has also meant a large transfer of manufacturing from the developed to the developing world – and with it many jobs.
Likewise, immigration is helping millions of people a year find a better life by leaving behind political corruption, resource scarcity, and environmental disasters.
Unfortunately, one effect of economic globalization and mass immigration has been political backlash within developed countries in the form of populism and nationalism. Hypersensitivity to loss of national sovereignty is not conducive to international agreements to address global environmental change issues.
3. Climate Science Skeptics
Although the global scientific community is broadly in consensus about the human causes of climate warming and other global environmental change problems, the rest of the world is more divided. Most people in the U.S. accept that the global climate is changing, but only about half accept the scientific consensus that climate warming is caused by human actions. Sources of skepticism about climate science include religious beliefs and vested interests.
4. Economic Inequality
Wealth inequality, both within nations and among them, is a pervasive feature of the global economy. The rich end of the wealth distribution contributes to the vested interests problem as just noted. At the poor end of the wealth distribution, the hierarchy of needs discourages concern for the environment; solidarity with the fight against climate change is a luxury when you are starving.
These four constraining factors are deeply rooted and are only the head of a list that would also include competition for limited natural resources and geopolitical conflict. It is daunting to think about overcoming these obstacles to a “we” that includes all of humanity. There are substantive ongoing research and applied efforts (not documented here) to overcome them, but in a general way let’s consider some equally significant factors that may help foster a global “we”.
The following rather disparate set of factors supply some hope for human unification under the banner of environmental concern.
1. Our Genetic Heritage
Humans are social creatures. Sociobiologists, such as Harvard Professor E.O. Wilson, have argued that many of our social impulses are genetically based. We have an instinctual propensity to identify with a particular social group, and to draw a distinction between that group (us) and outsiders (them). The average ingroup size during the hunter/gatherer phase of human evolution, which largely shaped our social instincts, is believed to have been about 30 people. Remarkably, the size of the social group that humans identify with has vastly expanded over historical time − from the level of tribe, to the level of village, empire, and the modern nation-state. Conceivably, that capacity could be extended to the global scale: we might all eventually consider ourselves citizens of a planetary civilization.
The historical expansion of social group size was driven in part by military considerations − the need to have a larger army than your neighbor. Obviously, this rationale breaks down at the global scale, but a distinct possibility for inspiring global solidarity is the looming threat of global environmental change.
Note that being a citizen of the world does not require rejecting one’s local or national culture. Multiple sources of identity could include being an autonomous individual, being a member of various ingroups, and being a member of humanity in its entirety.
2. The Advance of Earth System Science
A conspicuous general trend favorable to achieving a collective sense of responsibility for managing human impacts on the Earth system is growth in our scientific understanding of the Earth system. From studies of the geologic record, scientists know that Earth’s climate has varied widely, from cool “snowball” Earth phases to relatively warm “hothouse” Earth phases. Greenhouse gas concentrations have consistently been an important driver of global climate change, which gives scientists confidence that as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, Earth’s climate will warm.
The scientific community also has expansive monitoring networks that reveal the exponentially rising curves for metrics such as the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Earth system models that simulate Earth’s future show the dangers of Business-as-Usual scenarios of resource use, as well as the benefits of specific mitigation measures. At the request of the United Nations, the global scientific community periodically assembles the most recent research about climate change, the prospects for mitigation (i.e. reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations), and the possibilities for adaptation.
If improved understanding of the human environmental predicament can filter down to the global billions, we might hope for a strengthening support for collective action.
3. The Evolution of the Technosphere
The technosphere is a new global-scale part of the Earth system. It joins the pre-existing geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. However, just as the evolution of the biosphere was a major disturbance to the early Earth system, the evolution of the technosphere is proving to be disruptive to the contemporary Earth system.
Around 2.3 billion years ago, cyanobacteria evolved that could split water molecules (H2O) in the process of photosynthesis. The resulting oxygen (O2) began to accumulate in the atmosphere, radically changing atmospheric chemistry. Oxygen was toxic to many existing life forms, but eventually micro-organisms capable of using oxygen in the process of respiration evolved, which in time led to the evolution of multicellular organisms (and eventually to us).
In the case of technosphere evolution, a process that emits excessive amounts of CO2 (combustion of fossil fuels) has arisen, which is altering the global climate and ocean chemistry in a way than may be toxic to many existing life forms. One potential solution is that the technosphere can further evolve (by way of cultural evolution) to subsist on renewable energy rather than combustion of fossil fuels, thus moderating its influence on the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere.
A characteristic feature of technosphere evolution is ever more elaborate means of transportation and telecommunications. These capabilities – especially the on-going buildout of the Internet – allow for increased integration across the technosphere and tighter coupling of the technosphere with the rest of the Earth system. Sharing results of environmental monitoring in its many dimensions over the telecommunications network can help with creating and maintaining sustainable natural resource management schemes.
Through the popular news and social media, nearly everyone in the world can learn about events such as regional droughts and catastrophic forest fires that are associated with climate change. It is thus becoming easier to have a common frame of reference among all humans about the state of the planet.
There is not yet anything like a global consciousness that coordinates across the whole technosphere. However, the Internet is facilitating the emergence of a global brain type entity. One indication of what the nascent global brain is thinking about is the relative frequencies of different search terms on Google. Interestingly, in the algorithms that determine the response to search engine queries, a high frequency of previous usage for a relevant web site makes that site more likely to reach the top of the response list. That process is evocative of learning, i.e. reinforcement through repetition. Similarly, the Amygdala Project monitors Twitter hashtags. They are classified according to emotional tone, and a running visual summation gives a sense of the collective emotional state (of the Twitterers). Advances in artificial intelligence and quantum computing may soon improve the module in the global brain that simulates the future of the Earth system.
4. The Expanding Domain of Human Moral Concern
In “The Slow Creation of Humanity”, psychologist Sam McFarland recounts the history of the human rights movement. Writer H.G. Wells, humanitarian Eleanor Roosevelt, and others have helped develop the rationale and legal basis for including all human beings in our “circles of compassion” (Einstein’s term). The concept of rights has now begun to be legally extended to Nature (in Ecuador) and specifically to Earth (in Bolivia). Since protecting the rights of Earth (e.g. to be free of pollution) clearly requires that humans work collectively, we come to an incentive for global human solidarity.
Again, these four unifying factors are only the start of a list that might also include global improvements in education, as well as growth in the activities of global non-governmental environmental organizations.
The field of Earth system science is producing an increasingly clear understanding of the human predicament with respect to global environmental change. Scientist know what is happening to the global environment, what is likely to happen in the future under Business-as-Usual assumptions, and to some degree, what must change to avert an environmental catastrophe.
The process of changing the trajectory of the Earth system cannot be done unilaterally. From the top down, an important step will be genesis or reform of the institutions of global governance – including institutions concerned with the political, economic, and environmental dimensions of governance. This is a task for a generation of researchers, political leaders, and diplomats. From the bottom up, individuals must be brought around as adults, and brought up as children, to adopt an identity that includes global citizenship and associated responsibilities for the global environment. This is a task for a generation of educators, religious leaders, and business leaders.
If “we” human dwellers on Earth don’t gain a collective identity and begin to better manage the course of technosphere evolution, then we may no longer thrive on this planet.
Recommended Audio/Video, Mother Earth, Neil Young