Paper 4 draft

The future. For many it means a new age in which the mistakes of generations past have been rectified and life is better. For others, it is simply a continuation of the present. The same problems remain unsolved, the same bad habits prevail, the same life. There are many possible scenarios, ranging from chaos to utopia. It all comes down to whether or not humanity can rectify its mistakes; if we are capable of true change. There are a series of interrelated problems in the world that, if left unattended, will grow exponentially, plunging the earth into a chaotic state. These problems, namely population control, or lack thereof, dwindling natural resources, and global warming, could trigger others ad little by little a domino effect would appear, eventually leading to chaos. This, of course, is a worst-case scenario.

Carolyn Merchant's ecological view of the world in her last chapter suggests that she envisions a bleak future for the planet. While she states some local re-growth and optimistic predictions, this is at the expense of some other local ecosystem. As an whole, the planet is suffering from industrialization and technological advancements that further it more and more from the balanced state it was in hundreds and thousands of years ago.

However, she does seem to harbor a little hope for mankind from "ecological thinking" which she believes "offers the possibility of a new relationship between humans and non-human nature that could lead to the sustainability of the biosphere in the future."

Nye. What was his view on technology and ecology? Will technology end up surpassing nature? and will man finally be able to control the world, like another one of its machines, to adapt it to its every need and desire? and if so will it be a stay like this or will it only be a temporary state before the world collapses from the strain we have put in under?

In the Tragedy of the commons, Garrett Harding subtly suggests the idea that man, without restraint, will eventually ruin the planet due to his viral behavior. It seems that Hardin would favor a society in which man is controlled or led by people who deeply understand the relationship with everything around us. That the average man is not faced with decisions whose consequences he does not understand. A technocracy, it would seem, is the outcome that Hardin both desires and predicts. Man cannot be trusted to take decisions that could potentially have a negative outcome for some, even if it's for the greater good. We are ultimately animals, and have a survival instinct, but it seems to be focused on the present, and not the future. For a species who call ourselves the most intelligent creatures on earth, we have a severe problem planning several turns ahead, even when the game is life itself. A group of supreme minds must take over, beyond borders, and beyond ethnicities or any other trivial details that have clouded our choices in the past. These minds have the capability of understanding and making the decisions that an entire civilization cannot. The current system, democracy, is not a system suited for crisis situations, and that is what we are in. A crisis whose proportions and consequences far exceed any other we have encountered in the past. That is why drastic measures must be taken.

Merchant speaks of mutual obligation with the planet (p 263). I agree that it is imperative to develop a relationship with the earth that is mutually beneficial. However, I don't think this is possible. Humans are selfish creatures. They have shown this in the past, and I have no doubt they will show it in the future as well. She states that " a global ecological crisis that transcends national boundaries could trigger a transition to a sustainable earth", and yet global warming is a perfect example of such a crisis and instead of triggering a uniting of the species, it has further demonstrated our selfishness and greed. The hope that she harbors is based too much on a faith in man which I do not share. She also seems to rely on a unanimous decision, with policies that go beyond borders and total reformation and restructure of the system. Such a complete change seems highly improbable, not to say impossible. Although I would love to see a technocracy emerge from the crisis that is growing, I think the safest bet is against humanity. That is why I see the future as BAU (business as usual). There will not be a unanimous mindset about ecological crisis, which will prevent policy from being passed. And with the world being more and more dominated by bureaucracy and legislation, this prevention will undoubtedly be the wall against which all hopes of change will hit.