Sharing the Earth
Environmental justice is a question of distribution, who gets what, where and when. There are several different viewpoints on what is just, ethical, and equitable. Furthermore questions are raised such as why should things be fair; not everyone works as hard so do they all deserve the same? Is the issue one of “environmental racism” as Caroline Merchant would argue (217), or does it stem from industrial capitalism as Marx might say (Perter Burdon 229)? Could it be even broader than either, something as simple as “anthropocentrism”- something so broad and pervasive that we hardly can notice it let alone change it? An article from any of these perspectives would be relatively convincing, as indeed almost all the readings for this session indeed are. Perhaps it is because the human mind is incredibly apt at fitting facts to a working thesis and forming judgement before the jury is even back. Mental determinism drives much of how we view, interpret, and interact with the world and many times seems like an insurmountable goal; for indeed how does one change a mind that is already made?
However, I find this last question ridiculous and irrelevant. Humanity has not been shaped in the progressive fashion that is observable through history by changing minds, but by informing new minds. Burdon quotes Marx through the phrase, “coercive laws of competition” (229), but I feel that the more powerful and encompassing idea is that of the coercive laws of culture. Everyone grows up learning a certain ethical and moral code through the coercion of their family, friends, and national culture. Sure, some grow to eventually question and rebel against one teaching or another, but that is only through the social coercion of another framework that seems to make more sense in the context of their personal life experiences. So yes, we can change some minds, but it will never be enough to make a difference. Take for instance the civil rights movement. It took place nearly a hundred years after slavery, a matter of generations. Little by little new minds were shaped (socially coerced) to be reoriented in a more ethical fashion than that of their forefathers, and justice was won for an entire race of human beings. Many people think that an individual is powerless against a sea of opposition, and many times this many be true, but not if that individual works to shape that sea from opposition to a support net. It is the work of one brave mind to convince those around them that a single path is correct, the work of a community to convince a nation, and a nation to convince a world. This is not a quick or easy process, and indeed one that occurs over generations, but is as inevitable as the tide or the wind. The only issue is that some environmental issues do not afford us the time it takes, or so we perceive. It is an unfortunate truth that progress has always been borne on the backs of unwilling martyrs, but progress occurs none the less. So when faced with the question of how should we share the earth, the only real answer is as best and as justly as we can, but to never be satisfied. We must never rest on laurels or be content with previous triumphs. The environmental victories of the 70s and 80s must serve as a reminder to us that fighting is the only option, and never a frivolous pursuit. So if the question shifts from “How should environmental just be pursued?” to “Who should pursue that justice?” the only answer is all of us. We are finite beings, and so all of us cannot work towards every goal, but if all of us champion a local cause, like the Mothers of East Los Angeles, New York Public Interest Research Group, or El Puente Ojo Cafe, we will suddenly find ourselves in a world getting brighter each and everyday.