Studies and personal philosophy

Originally I qualified as an electronic engineer in 1979, largely because I had been tickled by the promise of the Digital Age. Engineering studies taught us how to think in a certain way – systems thinking – which has stood me in good stead ever since. But I soon learnt that engineering, although creative if one was lucky enough to design, was an overly narrow discipline. Engineers are a product of Industrial Society, programmed to serve its ends. So in 1991 I embarked on an MBA which was exciting and stimulating, not least because the country was undergoing its historic transition to democracy at the same time. The subjects that I enjoyed the most were Systems Thinking (which many of my classmates detested) and Business Ethics, which remarkably for the time and setting, carried a healthy dose of environmental ethics. So while the MBA was a welcome broadening of my education and launched the entrepreneurial phase of my life, it paradoxically had also helped to solidify my interest in environmentalism and caused me to question the notions of rampant resource extraction and consumerism, and unending economic growth.

After completing an MPhil in Environmental Management in 2004 I “hit the wall” trying to resolve the “humans-versus-nature” impasse in my mind. The MPhil gave me tools and a framework within which to understand ecological breakdown, biodiversity conservation, environmental law and economics, etc., and to be able to contribute better to resolving environmental dilemmas. Most of all the environmental ethics module helped me understand different world views and value sets that have driven our approaches over the centuries to our relationship with Nature. Even so-called “environmentalists” have differing world views if you listen carefully to their language: they could be human centered (e.g. conservationists, preservationists, etc.), nature centred (e.g. biocentrists, ecocentrists, etc.) or have radical, transformative outlooks (e.g. deep ecologists, ecofeminists, bioregionalists, etc.). Of course the point is not to place people and their values into neat categories; there is a continuum of world views (e.g. animal rightists don’t fit easily into the categories above) and it pays to listen carefully to how people frame their arguments.

Although the programme stimulated me enormously, I felt overwhelmed by the scale of ecological challenges that the planet faces and by our species’ apparent determination to careen “over the cliff” as it were. I understood the reasons for ecological destruction better, but struggled to see possible solutions. 

In 2008 I dived anew into a BPhil in Renewable and Sustainable Energy at Stellenbosch University’s Sustainability Institute, having convinced myself of the twin imperatives of climate change and peak oil (read “energy crisis”) and the need to address the way we generate and use energy – fast. Once again the experience was truly stimulating and the programme posed some seductive and tantalising ideas such as: the possibility of dematerialised and decarbonised economic growth, “positive” development which posits that a human-made environment can create net positive ecological outcomes, supply net positive ecological services. At the same time I obtained a healthy overview of renewable and passive energy technologies that supplements my engineering knowledge.

However, now more than a decade later, after a quarter of a century of scientific warnings about the effects of anthropogenic climate change and of a period that I might characterise as the “sustainable development” era, I now seriously question whether any of the above ideas – decarbonised growth, sustainable development (SD), positive development, SD Goals, etc. – have had any positive effect. The facts show that they have not had nearly enough. Human civilisation has frittered away twenty years with the more enlightened amongst us engaged in a holding operation at best and the rest intent on, or ignorantly, accelerating our headlong charge towards the cliff. Consider the following:

And so the litany of ecological breakdown continues. Everything is heading in the wrong direction and almost nothing has been reversed. The current approach has failed. There must be other ways.

The precepts of ecological economics, that economic activity is necessarily constrained by ecological limits, seem sensible. The ideology of ‘growthism’, that infinite economic growth is possible, and even desirable, on a finite planet, is plainly irrational. Growthism is a feature of all economic ideologies from capitalism, through socialism to communism – some, like capitalism are simply more “efficient” at extracting materials, although the measure of efficiency ignores “extraneous” costs like ecological destruction, waste and pollution. It seems clear to me that only radical, systemic change, rejection of extractive and wasteful economic systems, is necessary to prevent ecological breakdown. The ‘degrowth’ movement and ideas like doughnut economics argue that civilisation can remain within ecological boundaries while enabling humans, and other life on Earth, to thrive. 

The idea of ‘green growth’, that economies can continue to grow if only they switch energy sources to renewables, dematerialise, decarbonise and operate “sustainably” is seductive, but probably unrealistic and definitely too little, too late. It relies on techno-optimism, faith that technological silver bullets will bail us out. I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t aggressively pursue green technologies, but faith in technological solutions’ inevitability is irrational. Especially if that faith prevents us from taking degrowth steps and preventing ecological destruction. Both approaches are necessary.

The tantalising but insidious spin around SD convinced many of us to address our personal ecological footprints, which we did, only to realise that it is extremely difficult and it makes negligible difference. It perpetuated the great lie that sustainability is an individual responsibility, when the issue is in fact systemic. This is not to say that individuals should not and cannot contribute, but there must be profound curbs on corporations, consumerism and global capitalism – and the elimination of growthist ideology.

My studies have thus been a continuous journey in search of answers and understanding our relationship with the ecosphere. Obviously it has little to do with preparing for a profession or career or attaining wealth. It may have a little to do with being in the fortunate circumstance of being able to study easily and cheaply, but mostly it is about acquiring the knowledge to be able to contribute to making the planet a better place. I believe that one leads through influence.

 

Recent Posts

Simonsberg

Simonsberg has been a looming, brooding presence in my life for almost fifty years. It towered to starboard daily on the short walks to engineering classes, and later on the cycle commutes to work. In stressful times when I needed calm and to gaze at something...

read more

Welcome to RalphPina.com

Thank you for visiting my outdoor blog. RalphPina.com documents my experiences over many years of appreciating, and adventuring in, Nature. It celebrates visual beauty, advocates minimal impact, reflects on humans’ relationship with our ecosphere, spans the planet but focuses on the wild diversity of southern Africa. Photos, videos and GPS maps of hiking, cycling, kayaking, abseiling, canoeing and windsurfing..

Recent Comments

Twitter

Navigate

Aug 2021
MTWTFSS
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031 

Archives