Orion Digest №12 — The Greatest Disaster in Human History

We have faced many struggles as a species. Wars, plagues, journeys through harsh and unforgiving lands. The struggle against our own limits as we seek to do more, to know more about the universe around us. The past few decades alone have shown us many struggles, let alone the last century. But no matter what the conflict, we survived. We came out alive as a species, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. The fact that we’re here to tell the tale echoes that nothing has kept humanity down. Not yet, at least.

A fact we often take for granted is the fact that this survival is dependent entirely on the Earth’s environment remaining in it’s current state. Human beings, when viewed from an objective standpoint, are remarkably fragile and incapable of existing in most of the universe’s biomes unaided, which means that we’re rather fortunate that Earth should be capable of hosting us. Very small variations in position, atmospheric concentration, temperature — they would spell the end for us. And unfortunately, the last few centuries have seen societal and technological developments that threaten to do just that.

The byproducts from industrial processes and the use of nonrenewable fuel sources mean that we’re both stripping our planet of resources and changing our planet in a way that threatens our ability to survive on it. The loss of needed resources does not just refer to natural gas and fossil fuels — while difficult, we could make it without electricity and mass transport. No, clean water, oxygen producing forests, sustainable habitats for species — we lose these with every passing day.

Obviously, the loss of resources that our society uses to fuel itself would have terrible consequences for human civilization. We’ve seen plenty of post-apocalyptic movies to know that when the wheels stop spinning, things go awry and people die. But that is merely a short term concern. The inability of our planet to support human life would obviously mean an end to the human race — something that we can’t fight with weapons or safety procedures. For the foreseeable future, Earth is all we have. If the substances we create and the resources we deprive change the conditions of Earth, the story we’ve spent thousands of years telling is over. We’ll be nothing but landmarks in a dead wasteland.

The climate crisis is known by many, and sadly, it has a habit of not being taken seriously. Earth is a big place, and while we are destructive in our habits, it will take us a while to get to the point where the planet cannot sustain us. The Earth isn’t going to end tomorrow, and that’s why most people have a hard time believing those who preach on and on about how the world is ending. It’s simply an inconvenient idea that doesn’t hold current bearing in our lives, and would require dismantling modern society in the face of a threat that we can’t usually see. And nationalist pride dictates that no one would dare be the first one to weaken themselves voluntarily, even if it means helping the planet.

However, it’s not the threat that is immediate, but rather the deadline for action to stop that threat. The kind of action needed to heal some of the damage we’ve done would take centuries, a constant and long-term effort in order to ensure our survival. I’ve said it multiple times, but the problem of politics is the inability to see the forest for the trees; to realize that long term problems take precedence over short term ones. Politicians hardly want to take environmentalist action now, and they certainly don’t want to spend years constantly taking it.

If we hesitate and put off the problem until it reaches us, then it will be far too late by the time it affects our lives to make a change. In fact, some scientists speculate that the window of opportunity has already passed, and that no matter what we do now, the planet is past the point of no return.

Now, do I think that this means we should declare humanity a lost cause, curl up in a ball, and sing softly as we wait to die? Heavens, no. Pessimistic declarations of defeat only create certainty that the defeat will happen. But I will get to the more hopeful side of things in my next essay. For now, let’s look at one of the chief problems behind this conundrum.

The Industrial Revolution was a turning point in human history, as we figured out a way to maximize what we could produce and to increase efficiency, both in terms of machines and in the way we organized labor. It was cheap, it was growing quickly, and in theory, it benefitted employer and employee alike. (If you were an employer, you had a way to get rich quickly and make products faster, and if you were an employee, the job market was growing rapidly). Emphasis on ‘in theory’. See, the innate problem with the system that arose was the same thing that caused it’s popularity at inception — the idea that things needed to grow.

Ever hear the phrase “too much of a good thing is a bad thing?” Take, for instance, candy. Having candy sparingly is fine — it tastes good, it can be used to celebrate and relax. However, just because we enjoy and want candy doesn’t mean that the more we have it, the better we will feel. It has negative effects, with the drawbacks piling up far greater than they would have in moderation. Those drawbacks make it too much to bear.

So was the same with the growth and expansion that the Industrial Revolution embodied. The idea of automating production and organizing to make the flow of good and products easier was indeed something people wanted — who doesn’t want to make life easier, get a little richer, make things a little faster? But we never stopped, and as we continued in that pursuit of getting more, the cracks and flaws in the capitalist system slowly revealed themselves.

You reach a point in efficiency where you choose between saving money and benefitting your workers, and the mindset of industry became toxic to make the former the standard. You might be able to churn out things faster if you use more fuel, but doing so releases more smog into the sky. If you refuse to listen to the concerns of your workers and instead hire new employees when they complain, you keep the chain of production going even when people disagree. And as this system doesn’t exist in a vacuum, the effects of greed ripple out throughout society, causing people’s agitation to turn to fearful submission. The economy sped up like a freight train, and if you tried to object, you got left behind, because everyone still wants more candy.

And that’s how it went. People were more concerned with benefitting from the growing system than to slow down and keep our morals and wits about us, and as a result, society and its needs grew to such a level that we became dependent on that constant stream of resources, which were now being built on the destruction of the environment. The more industry grew, the more it needed to feed, and that appetite grew past nature’s ability to sustain itself.

It’s not that humans are naturally destructive or unable to coexist with nature — it’s that when we made a mistake and went too fast into the spirit of industry, we built a world on an unstable foundation, and by the time we found out, it was too late. Now, people are too afraid to change that foundation, because to do so would cause the collapse of the entire building. But that might just be necessary, because it’s continued existence spells what could be the greatest disaster in human history. We should have never created an unsustainable society, and though we have learned from our mistakes, the current capitalist system that sustains our society will be what destroys our species.

- DKTC FL