Manifest Destiny or Manifest Death

[Spiritwind]

I wrote this back in 2010 for one of my college classes I was taking at the time. I feel the message is still very pertinent today, so will share this here. Any commentary is welcome.

Manifest Destiny or Manifest Death

As the name of this article suggests, it is this author’s contention that many of the environmental woes the world faces today can trace its origins directly back to the notion that we somehow have the right as a people to exploit the environment in the name of expansion. Our founding fathers in America, and all subsequent leadership in most industrialized nations, have clearly demonstrated a reluctance to shift gears from the ideals of our forefathers, who felt it was their duty to multiply, become many, and fill the earth. Never mind that there were many people already occupying much of these unexplored lands, because, according to our ruling ancestors belief system, they were chosen by none other than the creator of all things, God himself, to secure these unexplored lands for themselves and their people (Scott). Judgment of our collective past is not the required ingredient to the creation of a new ideal that is more life sustaining for all people and all life on this planet, but a call to revolution in the very foundations of our thinking and belief systems. Just what got us here, what the real debate over environmental ethics is all about, as well as some possible solutions to our current impasse will be discussed. With the current emphasis on global warming let us hope we can reach a consensus and respond with appropriate action before it is too late.

As little as two hundred years ago our world was a much different place. The United States as we know it had just been born and the torch of liberty was being held high. Religious freedom, patriotic idealism, and the concept that America was chosen to lead the world in its movement toward democracy were common themes among its chosen people, namely those emigrating here from European countries (Scott). Of course, this concept of freedom did not extend toward those whose land was being usurped and already free way of life destroyed, not to mention those who were brought here as slaves primarily from Africa (Scott). There seemed to be no end of resources, open land, virgin forests and pristine lakes, rivers, and other waterways. The last thing on these early newcomers mind was conservation and preservation. The land was only considered sacred in that it had been bequeathed to them by God and it was their duty to conquer and tame the land as they spread out from the east coast to the west (Scott). No one at that time could have even envisioned how quickly this would all change. Although we have only begun to hear the voices of those who were visionary enough to see that this expansionist mindset could not go on forever without consequences, we are like an out of control freight train that is going so fast that even when the brakes are applied we can’t seem to slow down. The United States is one of the largest consumers of the world’s resources on this planet and yet, like many developed nations, her people are largely far removed from the consequences of their behavior. We are often blissfully unaware of the impact on those who reside in parts of the world where the environment is most noticeably being destroyed (Cairns, 2002; Schauberger, 1998).

According to John Cairns, Jr., who has written extensively on ecological ethics and sustainability, there are four sacred beliefs that need to be challenged. One is that “perpetual economic growth is possible on a finite planet and will solve all societal problems” (Cairns, 2002). The next two are “for every societal problem, there is a technological/economic solution” and “humans everywhere should be numerous, wealthy, and in control of the forces of nature” (Cairns, 2002, p.16). Lastly, he claims that “humans are identified primarily by their material possessions (Cairns, 2002, p.16). Implicitly implied in this is that we are somehow separate from nature and certainly corporations are even more removed in that they become an entity of themselves devoid of any other purpose than continuing to increase profits for their shareholders. With this kind of system we have arrived at a place where those who are most able to ignore the cost to others in the name of profit and power end up in the top “1% of the population” that “controls 34.3% of the” world’s “wealth” (Cairns, 2002, p.17).

Unfortunately, mankind in general tends to be creatures of habit and do not readily embrace change. Once the wheels of the industrial revolution were put in motion in the late 1700’s, the forward thrust of technological development has continued to speed up, supposedly making life better for all, while putting our scientists, the so called experts, on an almost unreachable pedestal. Instead of scientific endeavors being motivated by curiosity and a genuine desire to unravel the secrets of our world, it is primarily a utilitarian activity (Legendre, 2004). Corporations and government agencies generally only fund projects that benefit them, either by increasing profits, improving our national security, or increasing our productivity as a nation. In the past, new discoveries used to get people excited and engage our imaginations, as if the achievements of science directly reflected the intellect and desires of the people as a whole, at least in the more developed nations. Now when new products are rolled out it is almost taken for granted without any understanding or appreciation for what that technology really represents. In short, the scientific arena has become a separate entity from the people it is designed to serve and therein lays the danger (Legendre, 2004).

Several of the problems with this are that science, and the technologies resulting from it, are often what determines many of the changes we are experiencing in the way we live our lives. It is interesting to note that some of our greatest innovations in the past two hundred years have resulted in unforeseen consequences. Our “improvements in farming and public health” have directly contributed to the “population explosion” which illustrates the “potentially dark side that often reveals itself only when it is too late” (Legendre, 2004, p.19). So, at the same time we are becoming more and more removed from scientific inquiry due to the perceived complexity and specialized language, as well as the publics view of scientists as left brain oriented, overly analytical, boring people, we have a greater than ever need to restore our original interest in using one of our greatest assets as human beings. Our ability to solve problems creatively is at an all time low. Politicians generally have to rely on the experts for information relating to environmental issues and young people often lose interest when distracted by the needs of everyday living. Unless they can clearly see how it applies directly to them, they simply don’t have the time (Legendre, 2004). It would almost seem as though teaching children about the wonders of our world in a way that engenders a resurgence of our lost sense of awe, respect, and appreciation for this planet should be right up there with the three R’s, reading, writing, and arithmetic. That way there would be a reemergence of interest and public support for the more positive side of science which has the potential to work creatively with nature to make it possible for us to create a win-win scenario in which it doesn’t have to be nature in opposition to technology and man.

Of course, that would require us to move away from several well entrenched approaches, which go back to the four sacred beliefs. Let’s go back and examine them a little closer as they reveal considerable information on what the debate is really about. When you have only 1% of the world’s population controlling over 34% of the wealth you have to wonder where that leaves the rest of us, especially those in countries who are being most exploited by the corporations whose largest shareholders are probably part of that 1% (Cairns, 2002). That leaves the other 99% scrambling to get their share of what’s left and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is unlikely to get distributed equally amongst the rest. But, in a profit driven society that appears unwilling to put the brakes on itself, there are those that are going to be left behind. So it is illogical to think that “perpetual economic growth is possible” or that everyone should be as fruitful as they can, acquire a great deal of wealth, and can conceivably really control “the forces of nature” (Cairns, 2002, p.16).

One has to just look at such natural disasters as Katrina and the recent earthquake in Haiti to know that nature is really in control, not us. But to implement needed changes there would have to be honest dialogue that involves more than just the scientists who are often conflicted by fears of job security and politicians who are not really qualified to make such complex decisions (Berry, 2002, p.33). We, the people of planet earth, would have to come to a formal agreement on what our definition of eco-ethics is, and just what kind of world we really want to live in. From there we would need to begin taking the necessary steps toward a grassroots movement that recognizes we are no longer little pockets of civilization exploring and taming the frontier, but have long since moved into being a global community that requires a more global form of environmental ethics (Cairns, 2002).

Before this is likely to happen we must quit anesthetizing ourselves into thinking that either there is nothing we can do, or that the problem is best left in the hands of the experts. We must grapple with and reexamine the idea that the more technologically advanced nations of the world, and specifically, as expressed in the idea of Manifest Destiny, “that America has a sacred duty to itself and to the world to preserve and protect liberty and democracy” (Scott). As the world gets smaller and smaller we must extend that sacred duty to nature itself and all life and quit arguing over whether the natural world has instrumental or intrinsic value (Brennan, 2008). Louis Legendre, recognizing humanity’s rather illogical notion that we are somehow separate from nature, recommends the following formal definition of eco-ethics: “the theory of human actions, as subjected to duty towards nature- to which humans belong- and aiming at compatibility between nature and humanity, which provides rules of conduct and behavior for interacting with the natural environment. It must be remembered that Nature consists of the physical environment and living organisms, including human beings” (Legendre, 2004, p. 18).

To illustrate this idea a little bit further let us go back and consider the teachings of one of our earliest philosophers, Socrates. He felt that by sorting out the facts and personal values ascribed to moral issues, one could arrive at a set of universal ethical guidelines that could be applied in most every situation. Socrates also felt that these principles must be arrived at through more than just convenience or personal preferences, but had to be carefully examined with an objective, fact based, logical mindset (Ruggiero, 2008). Just because we have cleverly utilized the earth’s recourses in the name of civilization, economic expansion, and progress, does not mean we can continue to do this indefinitely. In fact, logic would tell us otherwise. Just because the majority are merrily marching headlong into disaster it would be prudent to remember that there are many cases in recorded history where the majority have been wrong (Ruggiero, 2008; Schauberger, 1998). But, we also need to reexamine the basic premise being promulgated here, and that is that we can really get along without nature, or that we are somehow separate from it. All the elements of our bodies are derived from natural processes that make up all life (Schauberger, 1998). The only thing that really separates us is our almost insane ability to commit suicide on a mass level and convince ourselves that something else is happening (Legendre, 2004).

The problem is, as Schauberger puts it so very well, is that humanity, “encouraged by a short-lived, illusory success…has embarked on a course that is beginning to disrupt the great coherence of life” by creating a “pseudo-culture” that almost worships technology (Schauberger, 1998, p. 7). Nature is a dynamic process in constant flux, whose rhythmic, cyclical processes are not quick to give up their secrets. In our arrogant and anthropocentric notion of Manifest Destiny, we have forgotten that regardless of our religious dogma and beliefs, we are still human and must rely on the earth and her bounty to sustain our physical form. It has been this slippery slope that has led our intellect astray. Part of the issue can be understood in terms of our dualistic nature that tends to look at things in extremes, either god or bad, mind being separate from matter (Schauberger, 1998). It endows humanity with the ability to engage in what Plato referred to as the pursuit of understanding what constitutes goodness, and at the same time seems to allow mankind to engage in behaviors that are clearly not life affirming. Part of the answer may lie in striving for that middle ground that Socrates talks about, somewhere between two extremes (Ruggiero, 2008). Certainly, it would seem more life affirming for all to subscribe to a worldview described by writers who noticed our growing separation from nature back in the late 1800’s, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of all life. This may be seen as a movement toward viewing all of creation as somehow sacred and worthy of closer examination (Cairns, 2002).

Besides adopting a more holistic worldview, two more very important things would have to happen. One involves shaking people out of their complacency and not only help them see the true state of things, but to show them viable alternatives that use the best of what is known from all fields of knowledge. Of course, the masses of people from the grassroots level would have to get involved as well as a collaborative effort between the world’s governments. These are both essential ingredients and there is evidence that it can be done.

In How We Regrew a Rain Forest: A Twenty Year Tale of Hope by Willie Smits, it was demonstrated that you can take an area that has been devastated by deforestation, that cannot even support any wildlife, and turn it into an ecological and economic success. Borneo, although not having any industry, “is now the third largest emitter of green house gases in the world” due to deforestation (Smits, 2009). But through the dedication, creativity, and determination of one woman who started out wanting to help abandoned orangutans, it has been shown that you can take an ecological wasteland that was agriculturally untenable, and about half the people were jobless, and turn it into an amazing success story. Not that it was easy. There was a lot of trial and error, mistakes were made, but ultimately there was success. Through the use of the best that science had to offer coupled with incredible problem solving skills they were able to actually change the climate and create around 3,000 jobs for local people in four years. A great deal of coordination was also required, such as satellite monitoring, cooperation from local agencies, a business plan that can anticipate the amount of labor needed and access to a large variety of plant life to see what will grow as the soil began to change, to name a few. Different formulas are needed for different situations, depending on location and conditions, but the fact remains, it can be done (Smits, 2009).

What made this story successful was not just a good idea, but the ability to engage the people who lived there in the process. No matter what the problem, or where, the solution will always have to engage the people. So, let us hope enough people can collectively wake up in time to get involved with and implement those changes in our collective paradigm to avert what seems to be almost certain disaster for not only the natural world, as if we were somehow separate, but human life as well. Do any of us really want to live in a world that resembles some of the science fiction movies most of us have seen or heard of that show us post apocalyptic scenes where there are no forests, oceans teeming with life, breathable air, drinkable water, and land that can be cultivated. It is time we move past the separating beliefs and dogma of religion and once again embrace a more compassionate system adhered to by many of the indigenous populations of the world where all life is considered to have intrinsic value. It is up to us to collectively accept the responsibility to manifest a life affirming destiny, and not manifest death.

References
Berry, R. J. (2002). Environmental Decision Making in a Technological Age: Prudence, Wisdom
and Justice. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. Retrieved March 19, 2010
from http://www.globethics.net
Brennan, A. & Lo, Y. (2008). Environmental Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://plato.standford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental
Cairns, J. (2002). Sustainability and Sacred Values. Ethics in Science and Environmental
Politics. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.globethics.net
Legendre, L. (2004). Science, Culture and (eco-) Ethics. Ethics in Science and Environmental
Politics. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.globethics.net
Ruggiero, V. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schauberger, V. (1998). Nature as Teacher. UK: Gateway Books.
Scott, D. M. The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny. Divining America, Teacher Serve,
National Humanities Center. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... estiny.htm>
Smits, W. (2009, Autumn). How We Regrew A Rainforest. Light of Consciousness, 21(3), 38-
43.

[Naga_Fireball]

Thank you very much for sharing this. I can see that you truly care about people. Typing from phone but wanted to say thanks.