AGW – what is the root cause?
Moses Seenarine, April 23, 2014
In a recent talk, ecologists Guy McPherson was asked if capitalism was the main cause of climate change. McPherson, aligning himself with
Jensen, Keith and followers of the deep ecology movement, avows that
the fundamental cause of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is civilization, and that the only
solution to AGW is collapse and anti-civilization. Both McPherson and Jensen assert
that civilization arises quickly after adoption of agriculture, and
collapses just as rapidly from population overshoot. Consequently,
both view agriculture and civilization as a dead-end. However,
recognizing that civilization is necessary to prevent nuclear power
plants from melting down, McPherson concludes that we are damned if
we do, and damned if we don't end civilization. Though he may be
right in his conclusion, his premise of farming as a
cul-de-sac is a misrepresentation based on a false dichotomy.
Using a reductionist binary approach,
deep ecology proponents conclude that hunter-gathers are sustainable
egalitarians who stand in sharp contrast to unsustainable,
patriarchal agriculturalists who inevitably create population
overshoot. However, they declare that the omnicidal agrarian path
toward civilization is not a one-way street, and cherry-pick
anecdotes to fabricate evidence of cultures they claim chose to
reverse course and become anti-civilization hunter-gathers. With no
expertise in palaeontology, archeology, anthropology, or the study of ancient
cultures, McPherson and Jensen universalize assertion is unsupported
and has never been peer-reviewed.
In Search of Repentant Hunter-Gathers
According to McPherson, at least three
Native American cultures - the Mimbres, Olmec and Chaco - figured out
that agriculture inexorably led to civilization, which was a problem,
and consequently forsook agriculture to return to a hunter-gather
diet. There is little archaeological evidence to support his
conjecture, but McPherson insist this is a hard lesson modern humans
have yet to learn.
The Mimbres were a group of small
villages in southern New Mexico, each with less than 200 inhabitants,
existing between approximately A.D. 100 and A.D. 1150. Destruction by
looters of this archeological site means that pottery and other
artifacts cannot be studied in situ, and important clues about
Mimbres culture and history have been destroyed. The region
experienced several harsh droughts, and there was significant
depopulation. McPherson claim that they didn't store seed corn after
the depopulation period, which confirms that Mimbreños made a
conscious decision to be anti-civilization.
There are several problems with this
analysis. First, there was never really a population explosion among
the Mimbres, with 6, 000 being a peak estimate. During droughts,
arable land remained along the river banks, and some Mimbres never
migrated and continued farming. If or why the Mimbres didn't store
seed, for how long, and how widespread, are all unclear. But even if
true for an extended period, one anecdotal example of a complex
culture does not prove the Mimbres became anti-agriculture and
anti-civilization.
McPherson similarly claims that Anasazi
and Olmecs decided to become anti-civ after collapse from the effects
of cultivation. However, experts on the Anasazi have observed that
severe droughts, religious upheaval, internal political conflict and
warfare may have led them to abandon Chaco Canyon and migrate south
into Mexico, where, significantly, they continued to practice
agriculture. Furthermore, few Anasazi remained or returned to the
canyon to live as hunter-gathers. Olmec researchers state that their
collapse was due to volcanoes, earthquakes, silting up of rivers, and
political conflict, and few, if any, make a case for collapse due to
agriculture-led over-population. Olmec sites were never re-populated
and successor Mayan cultures continued to rely heavily on
agriculture. There is hardly no evidence to suggest the Mimbres,
Olmec and Anasazi in Chaco Canyon resorted to hunter-gathering
exclusively.
Myth of the Noble Savage?
If there is no anti-civilization
exception to the agrarian dead-end, this leaves little room for hope
for deep ecologists and their hunter-gather vision of the future.
Finding repentant hunter-gathers is not their only problem. Deep
ecologists fail to explain why many agricultural civilizations never
collapsed, or why some farming groups have not experienced population
overshoot. They do not explicate the rise and fall of hunter-gather
groups in any general or specific context, distinguish between
matriarchal or patriarchal agriculturalists, or discuss the
relationship between collapse and patriarchy in a non-agrarian
context. Collapse on Easter Island was not due to the adoption of
farming, but to deforestation caused by patriarchal culture.
Many of deep ecology's basic
assumptions are flawed. In contrast to their false dichotomy
portraying hunter-gathers as pre-civilized groups with limited
populations, Paleolithic discoveries indicate that hunter-gathers
gathered in complex societies with large populations, and ancient
megalithic sites demonstrate that pre-agrarian cultures were capable
of transforming their environment. Recent research of the Pleistocene correlate the arrival of hunter-gathers with the
extinction of mega-fauna, which establishes that extinction and
collapse is not an agrarian phenomena. The elimination of mega-fauna
in turn led to drastic habitat changes across wide areas of the
globe.
Another false assumption made by deep
ecologists is that hunter-gathers are egalitarian. The widespread
practice of raiding, capture and gang rape of girls and women among
Amazon hunter-gathers show just the opposite. Indeed, there is little
evidence to suggest that the vast majority of hunter-gathers are
egalitarian or ever were.
Agents and Agency
With the collapse of modern
civilization due to climate change all but assured, it is extremely
important that we try to determine the root cause of AGW. Men are the main creators of civilization, yet it is interesting that two men would transfer male responsibility entirely to an ambiguous development method that is supposedly gender neutral.
Women-invented agriculture, food storage and processing technologies, are entirely dismissed, as are the flowering of cultures and consciousness due to these female discoveries. Women still are the majority of agricultural laborers, and feed much of the world, but their work is minimized by men who own and control most of the land they toil on. Female agrarian technology is organic and sustainable, and most women do not support deforestation for monoculture and factory farms.
Other scientists and environmentalists argue that industrialized civilization, not agriculture, is the root of all planetary destruction. However, industrialized civilization did not emerge fully formed out of the clear blue sky. The patriarchal mindset that created industrialized civilization existed before the Pleistocene, and is characterized by the objectification of nature and women as free resources for male competition and development.
Men's oppression of women and nature predates agricultural and industrial civilization. Focusing on agricultural and industrial civilization as the main causes for planetary collapse ignores the hegemonic agency that created both, minimizes ubiquitous male violence against women and nature, and provides men with a completely free pass. It means little to women and nature if industrial civilization ends and male dominance and patriarchal thinking remains.
Ecofeminist Analysis
The root cause of AGW is the patriarchal destruction of nature, and inequality. Radical
ecofeminists link the exploitation of animals and nature, and the
oppression of women, to male desire for transcendence of both.
Masculinity and male identity are viewed as the main cause of
conflict, hierarchy, resource depletion, and collapse. Ecofeminists' solution is not a cul-de-sac, catch-22 anti-civ struggle that still seeks to transcend wild animals and females, but
an anti-patriarchal movement based on equality with nature. And surviving
examples of sustainable matriarchal agrarian cultures like the Minangkabau,
Mosuo, Khasi, Bribri, Nagovisi and others, inspire hope that change
is not only possible, but doable.
No comments:
Post a Comment