Does it make sense to identify a geological age of Earth called the Anthropocene or “the recent age of man” in Dutch scientist Paul Crutzen’s terms? (Anthropos is the Greek term for “man” and includes all persons of both sexes.) The argument for doing so is that starting in the mid-twentieth century, humans are permanently transforming the Earth’s geological record, with traces of nuclear energy in sediments for example. The Economist discusses this topic in its July 13 issue under the alarming title: “What Matters About the Anthropocene is Not When It Began, but How it Might End.” As usual, the magazine espouses (sometimes carefully) an environmentalist viewpoint, and writes:
The idea of the Anthropocene is a striking expression of a profound truth. Human activity is having effects that will be visible for periods of time far longer than recorded history. Humans are responsible for physical, chemical and biological changes previously brought about only by the great forces of nature.
A paradox if not a contradiction seems to underlie the last sentence, and this problem mars much environmental activism. The statement implies that humans are not part of “the great forces of nature.”
If, on the one hand, man is part of nature, he is certainly part of “the great forces of nature.” Man being a rational animal, it is to be expected that he will transform the rest of nature in some noticeable ways. From this perspective, it seems nonsensical to oppose humans to nature. If, on the other hand, man is not part of nature because his reason stands over and above nature—or perhaps because he has an immortal soul—then his dominion over nature is to be expected and celebrated. Certainly, “nature” cannot object and argue that man is just a biological slime.
Blaming mankind for transforming “nature” makes little sense. We (any of us) may be concerned for the future of our species, of those individuals who will be our descendants. A thinking creature certainly has philosophical or esthetic reasons, or reasons of vanity, to react this way. It is true that an all-out nuclear war or perhaps another sort of ecological catastrophe could wipe out mankind; dinosaurs have been there before. But it is also true that mankind could prevent some catastrophes, such as an asteroid hit, from wiping out all human life. Already, the social, economic, and political institutions developed in Western countries have dramatically reduced poverty in our world.
Some humility is also warranted. Whatever humans do, it is unlikely that the Earth or the solar system or the Milky Way will still be around in, say, 30 billion years (about the current age of the universe). “We” may have been swallowed by a black hole, perhaps our own black hole at the center of our galaxy.
More practically, economics is relevant to a reflection on shorter time horizons. The economic way of thinking suggests at least three thoughts. First, mankind is composed of the total set of distinct human individuals; it is not a big organism (whose brain, as Hitler thought, is in Vienna).
Second, this implies that the standard problem of collective action will appear in any common action that could be necessary to save the planet (on collective action, see Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, 1971). Who will pay, and how much, for destroying or deflecting an incoming asteroid? Who will pay for preventing, or adapting to, climate change, if this is a serious threat for everybody? Will the workers employed or conscripted on related projects be paid the Davis-Beacon wage? Will they be allowed to go on strike? And—question seldom asked—how many years or centuries of tyranny are individuals likely to suffer as a consequence of their conscription by the state in collective green projects? The answer that this is a slippery-slope argument is vacuous; besides history, the economic analysis of politics does show that submission to political authority is indeed very slippery.
Third, to what extent is organized collective action necessary? A great 18th-century discovery must not be forgotten: a spontaneous social order can generate prosperity without the necessity of any individual or group of individuals overruling other individuals’ preferences. This spontaneous order was first theorized by Adam Smith and is especially well represented in the thought of Friedrich Hayek (see my review of his Law, Legislation, and Liberty, especially Volume 1 and Volume 2). In other words, collective action led by government is generally not required. But if and when it is, on the basis of which rules should it be organized? A major strand in James Buchanan’s work has been to explore this question in a radically different way than cost-benefit analysis, given the ethical requirement of each individual’s consent to the rules that limit his or her liberty.
I claim that any environmental reflection must consider these economic ideas.
READER COMMENTS
Jose Pablo
Jul 17 2023 at 7:56am
I claim that any environmental reflection must consider these economic ideas.
This is not going to happen.
The “environmental movement” is all about, as you rightly pointed out in your previous post, “excuse(s) for oppressing their fellow humans“. And because of that “classical liberalism” (and not global warming) is the real enemy.
This “framework” allows a better understanding of the movement:
a) that’s the reason why you see “global warming” frequently packed together with inequality
b) that’s the reason why “nuclear power” is not even considered part of the solution for the environmentalist movement
c) that’s the reason why “geoengineering” is not even considered. The idea that somebody can become Bezos or Musk kind of rich by developing and putting in place a solution to this problem, is anathema to the Movement.
This framework leads to endless useless discussions, while, at the same time, blocking the real powerful solutions that could solve the “problem”. If this problem is real, we are doomed, because we are trapped in a “socialist mindset” within which the problem has no solution (after all, the track record of this mindset solving problems is not that impressive)
The only solution is “banning” governments (and central planners of all kinds) from even participating in this debate and finding mechanism (mainly by creating the right set of incentives) to put markets and entrepreneurs (the real ones, not subvention chasing professors) in the driver seat.
Don’t hold your breath.
Robert EV
Jul 17 2023 at 2:26pm
To argue the other side of the coin, you’re basically saying that the only cure to tinnitus is more cowbell.
CFCs – created by industry
Gasoline – created by industry (and leaded by industry)
Barrels of dioxins buried just off the cost – created by industry
etcetera.
The truly only real cure to many of these problems is listening to the Cassandra’s of the day and taking steps to limit externalities in advance, or at least fund a cleanup plan for them in advance (what’s good for the USPS in terms of pensions is good for everyone else).
To be more fair, I agree that industry will have to be a big part of the solution.
On nuclear power: 55% of Democrats and Dem leaners are currently opposed to the expansion of nuclear power in the US, but so are 38% of Republicans and Rep leaners. While the environmentalist movement is general is probably largely opposed to the expansion of nuclear power (at least in the form of fission reactors), they are not the main problem here.
Jose Pablo
Jul 18 2023 at 5:58am
What does “created by industry” mean?
What “industry” creates are “solutions” to human needs. So you very likely mean, “created by human needs”. This “it is others’ fault” mantra, is part of the wrong mindset I was trying to point out.
It is “us”, consumers, causing emissions and it is “us”, consumers, refusing to pay higher prices for energy (look at European government reactions to last year energy price increases).
So, the “externalities” you mention (I don’t think this concept is of any help in this discussion) are pretty “internalized”. “We” emit and “we” suffer the consequences. Pretending that are “others” the ones emitting CO2, is having a poor understanding of what “demand” (or utility) is.
And yes, industry and market forces are the only ones capable of providing the solutions “we” need at the prices “we” are willing to pay. The Cassandras of the day would be more useful helping to design the “market incentives system” (certainly not in place) to make the very powerful mechanism of human greed helping us to tackle this problem.
Within the wishful thinking, virtue signaling and “banning” obsessions of the political realm the problem has no solution.
Robert EV
Jul 18 2023 at 9:30am
There were alternatives, at the time, to tetraethyl lead in gasoline. They were just more expensive.
There also were alternatives to dumping 25,000 barrels of DDT (sorry, misremembered this as dioxins) off the coast of California. Again, more expensive.
Sure, better living through chemistry, but what was so bad about wax paper? Or regular dot matrix printers instead of BPA/BPS heat printers for receipts?
We probably would have had plenty of carbon emissions, but it was a want-based choice, not a need-based choice to continue using cheap gas and high-powered automobile engines and heavy vehicles following the OPEC oil embargo. A choice that harmed poorer consumers, and continues to do so (through higher prices and traffic fatalities). And again a want-based choice to not invest in alternative energy supplies. Even sticking with fossil fuels, a stronger push toward more natural gas, and an investment in hydrogen mining following the discovery of the hydrogen well in Mali in the 1980s, could have saved both money and carbon. Even granting hydrogen from the ground as a radical scheme back then, the continued coal mining over natural gas and some renewables was a want-based choice, not a need-based choice.
Industries choose what is most profitable at the time. Not necessarily what’s best for human needs, or even what’s most profitable 30 years down the line.
Jose Pablo
Jul 18 2023 at 10:45am
Industries choose what is most profitable at the time. Not necessarily what’s best for human needs,
Robert, you are free to produce what is best for human needs. Sure, this would be a hit with consumers, and you will become rich (please, once there, just remember I was encouraging you to enter this path).
Just one little caveat, you cannot “force” consumers to consume what you say/believe is best for them (and you cannot ban alternatives). They have to be free to make their own choices.
You have to understand that letting you decide what is best for us, consumers, is way too dangerous.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 18 2023 at 11:27am
Robert: Two points that, from an economic viewpoint, apply to most of your comments above. First, if we want to explain individual actions and social interactions, starting from what you or I think others “need” instead of what they each actually want or desire (technically, the demand each individual expresses given his preferences and constraints), we won’t go very far. The reason is that every other individual will continue to make choices according to what he thinks will improve his own situation, and this includes what rulers (politicians and bureaucrats) think they “need.” Second, if we want to evaluate the ethics of different rules and institutions, we have basically two alternatives. Either we think that each individual should be free to make his own choices within a general context where each is at equal liberty, and then there is no moral room for anybody to decide what others need and to impose it by force. Or else, as the last clause suggests, we favor tyranny–strangely hoping that it will be “our” tyranny over others and not somebody else’s tyranny over “us.”
Perhaps you are right, but the way to prove would be to reformulate it in a way consistent with what I just said (which is consistent with the gist of economic theory).
Roger McKinney
Jul 17 2023 at 12:10pm
Very good points! But the environmental movement is about feeling, not reason.
Robert EV
Jul 17 2023 at 2:17pm
“The statement implies that humans are not part of “the great forces of nature.””
You’re reading it wrong. It implies that humans have become, separately, a “great force of nature”, not merely a part of one of the great forces of nature (which would be multicellular life in general).
When you really step back and look at it, this is a heady thought. We’ve graduated into a super power, not merely a regional power, or even a great power.
Yep, these are all important questions.
“Will they be allowed to go on strike?” – Hopefully at least as much as they are allowed to today (or in Reagan’s era). 😀
Scott Sumner
Jul 17 2023 at 4:10pm
There is a sense in which everything in the universe is “natural”. But I still believe the distinction between natural and “artificial”, or “man-made” can be useful.
The free market also seems to generate this distinction, as natural diamonds are much more expensive than artificial diamonds. Is your view that all diamonds are natural, because humans are a part of nature?
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 18 2023 at 11:35am
Scott: Perhaps you are right, but I would add one caveat. Hayek explained why the binary difference between natural and man-made cannot explain social phenomena (language, morals, and other social institutions), which are the products of human action but not of human design (neither “man-made” nor “natural”).
Richard Fulmer
Jul 18 2023 at 4:09pm
Humans don’t have the physical attributes needed to adapt to nature. To survive, we must adapt nature to ourselves. In the process we change the environment.
That said, all living creatures change their environment by virtue of what they eat, what eats them, and what they emit. Plants, for example, produce the oxygen and food needed to support animal life.
But even inanimate objects change the environment. Volcanoes build mountains while wind and water wear them down. And, if evolutionists are to be believed, non-living elements brought forth life on this planet.
The list of processes, objects, and organisms that “permanently transformed the Earth’s geological record” is long and is hardly limited to mankind.
Knut P. Heen
Jul 19 2023 at 8:01am
Nauru is an interesting case. Birds have created mountains of excrement which people have mined for phosphate. Are the mountains natural and the mines unnatural? I bet we would not call mountains of excrement from people natural.
Anders
Jul 19 2023 at 1:13pm
No doubt humanity has the capacity to destroy habitats, pollute a quarter of Siberia, and even dry out enormous lakes. But even basic consideration of science makes it abundantly clear how insignificant we are in the grander scheme of things and how the mere existence of life is the result of a confluence of millions of factors where infinitesimal changes would have made life as we know it impossible.
Yet we have the arrogance of naming an entire era based on the notion the changes we make are on the level of eras lasting hundreds of millions of years, each changing the world radically though still blanching in comparison to the four billion years of the earth and its inevitable destruction in another four or five.
We failed central planning of the economy. But destroying the entire planet in a geological millisecond remains fully in our power, as does stopping it by simply moving away from combustion of fossils. Where did we get such enormous powers all of a sudden?
BS
Jul 19 2023 at 3:12pm
Humans are the only species on earth right now which has even a remote chance of preventing a dinosaur-killer event.
Comments are closed.