Unraveling the Environmental Crisis and Human Response: Why Does Humanity Continue to Destroy Its Own Environment?

Source: Shaiith/elements.envato.com

This article delves into the complexities of human behaviour, exploring the interplay of self-interest, empathy, wealth, and environmental responsibility. Join me on a journey to understand why humanity continues to neglect our planet's well-being in the face of certain destruction.

Unraveling the Environmental Crisis and Human Response

Our planet is currently grappling with a wide range of environmental challenges, including the profound effects of climate change, alarming biodiversity loss, and excessive pollution. Earth is in a state of jeopardy, prompting us to recognise the urgency of the situation and commence our quest for long-term solutions.

How did we get to this point? Why have we allowed ourselves to enter a warlike relationship with the natural world? It is intriguing to ponder because humans possess incredible qualities--consciousness, intelligence, empathy, and impressive adaptability. However, it is precisely these remarkable attributes that present the crux of the problem.

As humans, our capacity to adapt to the physical aspects of our environment also extends to our mental flexibility. This allows us to convince ourselves that everything will be fine--that someone else will solve these problems or that the problems are not really that threatening.

Humanity will face extreme weather events, natural disasters, and the failure of climate change mitigation within the next ten years. Due to the sluggish progress in addressing climate change, we find ourselves in an undesirable situation of primarily responding to the consequences of climate change instead of taking proactive measures to implement holistic solutions.

So, the question is, why do humans continue to destroy their own environment or fail to take definitive action in the face of certain destruction?

Seeking Wealth and Profit

The phrase "money is the root of all evil" is a common saying, suggesting that the desire for wealth can lead to adverse outcomes. The concept of "profit" represents wealth accumulation, providing financial stability and the ability to acquire what many consider as success or a fulfilling life.

However, it is important to note that money, wealth, and profit themselves are not inherently evil. The real issue arises when individuals prioritise their own self-interest and immediate gains, disregarding the well-being of others and the environment, regardless of the costs or harms caused.

Today, we see the consequences of self-interest gone astray: the prevalence of air pollution, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, ocean plastics and acidification, and numerous other issues. Despite the evident and immediate threat these pose to the well-being of present and future generations, the environment remains under attack: high-slope developments in Malaysia disrupt the soil's water-retention capacity, leading to landslides and loss of lives; tar sands mining in Alberta devastates vast expanses of pristine land, leaching toxic chemicals into wetlands; Amazon rainforests are intentionally burned daily, releasing countless tons of carbon dioxide, all to make way for methane-emitting cattle ranches.

Moreover, the extensive adoption of factory farming practices contributes to alarming levels of phosphorus and nitrogen accumulation in the soil, posing significant environmental risks.

Source: anafranscisconi/elements.envato.com

Throughout history, societies across the globe have placed great importance on financial gain as a key measure of success. This pursuit of profit is often associated with what we consider as "rational thinking" and the logical manifestation of human goals. In fact, for many individuals, the accumulation of wealth and material possessions is seen as an indicator of societal advancement and human development.

The utilisation of fossil fuels, beef farming (which leads to methane emissions from cows), and various industries have resulted in pollution and global warming, which are considered external consequences. A profit-driven mindset seeks to shift the burden of these problems onto governments, making them responsible for addressing and resolving them. This is a powerful way to maximise profits but a sure pathway to environmental destruction.

Lacking Empathy

Much like our own self-interest, empathy is an intrinsic part of being human. It stems from our ethical values, urging us to work towards a harmonious world for all. This means fostering a sustainable environment and ensuring fairness and equality in society, ultimately benefiting us in the long run.

The most visible forms of empathy are acts of selflessness (altruism), ethical behaviour, and what we generally consider 'being good'. Unlike self-interest, the rewards of empathy aren't always tangible or easily observable. For instance, when someone acts altruistically, they may experience joy and fulfilment from performing a kind act.

According to Fleming and Roberts [1], in their book "Sustainable Design for the Built Environment", the problem lies when people lack cognitive empathy across space and time and affective (or emotional) empathy for nature and animal species.

When it comes to empathy in sustainability, it is crucial to extend our understanding and compassion beyond our immediate surroundings. This is what Fleming and Roberts refer to as empathy across space. Picture a farmer struggling with drought in a distant land or fishermen finding plastic in the stomachs of their catch in far-off waters. If we lack empathy across space, we fail to recognise the interconnectedness of our world and the impact our actions can have on others and the environment.

Empathy across time represents a profound and influential form of empathy. It involves caring about the well-being of future generations, which demands a significant level of cognitive empathy. This form of empathy may seem abstract, as these yet unborn individuals may not be connected to us through family, nationality, or religion. However, sustainability expects us to show empathy towards them. Those who lack empathy across time fail to recognise that every decision made today can impact people living 150 years from now.

Additionally, individuals often lack affective or emotional empathy towards nature and the various animal species. The revelation that the world has lost an area of forest twice the size of the United States [2] might not shock them, or they may not see the practice of logging faster than the forest can regenerate, as a problem.

They may ignore the information disclosed by Greenpeace [3], stating that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic find their way into the ocean every year. They remain indifferent when confronted with images of significant quantities of plastic bags and microplastics discovered in the stomachs of deceased whales washed ashore. They also quickly forget the hardships of polar bears struggling on melting ice in the warming Arctic wilderness.

Source: photocreo/elements.envato.com

The rise of wildlife corridors (a.k.a eco-bridges) over major interstate highways is an example of empathy across animal species. These bridges allow animals to cross major highways without being in traffic lanes; hence, reducing collisions. In essence, empathy stands as a fundamental basis in the realm of sustainable design.

To gain deeper insight into why our Earth is in peril, it is essential to ask why isn't everyone concerned about sustainability. The answer depends on their position within the income spectrum.

The Poor: "We just can't worry about it"

It should not come as a surprise if individuals or families struggling to make ends meet cannot dedicate significant time or resources to preserving ecological or social systems. This situation is further compounded by political oppression. It is important to remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which explains that people prioritise fulfilling their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing, before focusing on personal health and safety needs.

After fulfilling basic needs, individuals seek a sense of belonging and connection with others, followed by self-esteem, status, and recognition. At the top of the hierarchy are self-actualisation needs. Prioritising environmental protection, for example, can be considered a luxury that individuals may not be able to afford until they reach a higher level in the hierarchy. Certain researchers have suggested that caring for the well-being of humanity, such as sustainability efforts, is a component of self-actualisation.

The Wealthy: "We don't have to worry about it"

The evidence indicates that the most affluent individuals in society are the least susceptible to adverse effects from ecological or social systems damage. Consequently, the argument posits that sustainability concerns do not significantly burden those with access to the necessary resources to shield themselves from potential harm.

For example, the airspace above Sao Paulo, Latin America's wealthiest major city in the developing world, was reportedly dominated by helicopters used by the rich to commute, attend meetings, even run errands and attend church as many roads were hopelessly congested with traffic [4]. During the recent economic downturn in Brazil, the number of homeless people among the less privileged in Sao Paulo escalated drastically. In contrast, the wealthy residents simply reduced the rate at which they use their helicopters for city travel.

Another example can be seen in the recent report by Mercy Corps [5], which stated that the increasing frequency and intensity of severe storm events due to climate change have a greater impact on people living in poverty. Low-income neighbourhoods, where homes, schools, and medical centres are located, face a higher risk of damage from flooding. Unfortunately, these areas often receive lower priority for repairs and reconstruction efforts.

Additionally, the lack of necessary insurance coverage among the economically disadvantaged further compounds their challenges. Furthermore, when businesses in these neighbourhoods are forced to close, it disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to experience unemployment.

Source: irfanmnur/elements.envato.com

In tandem, the two occurrences between the affluent and the underprivileged appear contradictory. Individuals with lower incomes may not have the luxury of considering sustainability, while those with higher incomes may not feel compelled to do so. It is important to note that these are broad generalisations. However, the first scenario prompts caution in passing judgement on others' choices, while the second emphasises the need to be aware of the responsibilities that accompany prosperity. Ultimately, the pursuit of sustainability does demand a little ethics, after all.

Balancing Act

In conclusion, our planet faces an imminent environmental crisis marked by climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The paradox of humanity's capacity for incredible qualities and simultaneous destructive behaviour raises profound questions.

From the ethical dilemma of prioritising profit over environmental well-being to the intrinsic connection between empathy and sustainability, understanding and addressing these challenges require a collective effort. Recognising disparities based on income levels sheds light on the complex interplay between human needs and environmental responsibility.

As we navigate this critical juncture, it is clear that achieving sustainability demands a nuanced understanding of human behaviour, ethical considerations, collective awareness, and a shared commitment to fostering a harmonious coexistence between humanity and our planet.