There are many different routes to environmentally sustainable decisions that do not undermine life on Earth. For all their diversity, approaches can be roughly broken down into two categories: efforts that make use of morality to reach citizens’ conscience and reasonableness and therefore bring their action to a higher plane; and those that shoot lower, selectively playing off of the pragmatics of people’s everyday lives without trying to change people. One method seeks to bring the populace to the level of the advocate; the other meets the masses where they are. Neither is a superior method to the other, evidenced by the fact that both manners of creating environmentally responsible action are numerous in our society. For example, conservation organizations ply the ethical/conscience angle in using endangered furry critters to get donations, and some states use the practical economic incentive of small redemptions to get consumers to recycle beverage containers. Both methods, the moral and the pragmatic, should continue to be used, but there are many individuals, especially of the economist bent, who believe the practical to be the primary route toward eco-sanity, if we want to be successful in the long run. With that in mind, I present one possibility for how this practical approach can be utilized for the benefit of all, human and nonhuman: a campaign called The Human Survival Project.
What is the single root motive that most humans and other creatures exhibit, deep in our instincts? Survival. Over the eons, people have gone through astounding trials to avoid death, either as individuals or as a group. Think about what matters most to you, the last thing you would want to give up if everything around you were crumbling. For countless individuals what matters most when the feces hit the fan is the health and survival of themselves and their loved ones (such as children or spouse). This is the single reason ransom kidnappings succeed. Further, for some people the primary motivation in their everyday lives, what drags them out of bed to go to work in the morning, is the quality of life of loved ones who depend on them.
Self-preservation for ourselves and select others is thus of paramount importance to us. Yet our actions relative to the rest of the natural world are threatening this survival. These self-initiated threats include poisons like mercury in fish that decrease what we can safely eat, decreased sperm count that can lead to mass infertility, formerly thriving biomes turned barren by mining or overgrazing, and the enormous wild card of nuclear weapons that could obliterate all of our efforts at survival. Thus, from the practical (as opposed to moral) angle, the end goal of both our instincts and environmental responsibility are the same: human survival. One way of taking advantage of this wonderful parallel is a movement that could be called The Human Survival Project. This would be a completely self-interested undertaking, in that the rest of the natural world comes second to human self-preservation, yet the net result would be the same, for the thing that we people need for our continuance is the same thing that will reverse environmental/nuclear destruction: a world full of the clean water, air, and food that allow for an endless future. If we do not take better care of the natural world (or relearn how to leave it alone more) we will destroy both it and ourselves. We are completely dependent on the free gifts given to us by nature – fresh water, oxygen to breathe, green food that amazingly pops out of dirt, animals to eat or raise, and wood and other materials with which to build and clothe ourselves. Irresponsible action will eliminate these sustaining gifts and therefore eliminate us. So an angle that is entirely narcissistic and anthropocentric actually leads straight to environmental sustainability.
We can reach the same tangible results through either of the two approaches, the ethical that seeks to improve people’s actions, and the practical that centers on our need to survive on an orbiting rock with finite resources. The two routes to this mutual end of environmental responsibility are different, yet they end up in the same place.
Therefore, insightful advocates may want to start a human-centered movement, perhaps called The Human Survival Project, which will kill two birds with one stone, ensuring continued existence long into the future of both humans and the rest of the thriving natural world.
Colin Doyle draws on a broad palette of experiences from his three decades, including receiving degrees in anthropology and religion from fine universities and living for a time in seven U.S. states, West and Southern Africa, Europe, and indigenous South America. He now teaches outdoor science in the mountains of Southern California during the school year and leads backpacking trips with teenagers in New Hampshire during the summer. He can be reached at cbdoyl@hotmail.com.
