Social Justice and Ecological Sustainability Cannot Exist Separately
Laura Norton-Cruz ‘04
 

A recurring problem among those who wish to change the world is that tedious demand of different issues that creates conflicts of priorities.  This is seen often enough in questions regarding people vs. the environment: Save the owls or save the loggers’ jobs, and questions such as that which place social justice and environmentalism at odds with one another.  These two issues are often portrayed as antagonistic, both by Marxists who take the environment for granted and consider it a recourse of production, or by environmentalists who see nature as something separate from human life and adopt anti-humanistic views and policies in regard to environmental preservation.   This separation of the two issues need not exist.
 
It seems to me that the only solution there is, not only to solve those two problems, but to find a meaningful and realistic alternative to the capitalist exploitation of humans and the environment, is an integration of social justice and ecological sustainability.  This is not to appease both issues, but because one cannot exist without the other.  Humans cannot be free and lead great lives if they are choking on smoke, developing cancer in growing numbers, eating food full of poison, having sewage or nuclear waste in their backyards, being deprived of the plants that make oxygen, or living in a world without wild animals and forests.  Neither can the environment exist separate from or at the expense of human lives.  Cities and neighborhoods are environments too, and nature is not something separate from humans, as though we were some parasite on the earth.  In fact, as Anarchist/Social Ecologist Murray Bookchin pointed out in argument with those who assert that humans are no better than all other animals and are simply parasitic, human beings have a unique capability to watch out for other species, something that no other animal can do.  To save the environment by letting people die off naturally or some such anti-humanistic idea is not only ridiculous and cruel, but racist, in that it affects the poor of the third world primarily.  (As does environmental pollution currently—the rich do not face the problems of drinking water and nearby factories that the poor, especially those of the third world, face.)  To separate the environment from people is not really an option for positive change, contrary to what deep ecologists and some other environmentalists think.   Neither is assuming that capitalism can play nice with the environment an option.  Capitalism and market socialism/state capitalism have as their goal profit, and as their recourses, the environment.  They may make reforms, but the behavior in regards to human beings and nature will necessarily be an exploitative one, as their purpose is not to serve the well-being of the people or world.
 
This integration of social justice and ecological sustainability could only happen if the decisions (of production, development, preservation, innovation, etc.) were being made by those who most affected.  This means community decision-making with the purpose of actualizing the community’s interests and well-being.  First, this means forming communities, something quite lacking in the individualistic capitalist society, but possible.  (For instance, during the French Revolution, Paris split up into some
180 decision-making municipalities.)    With a system set up for democratic decision making, where all people of different ethnicities, sexes, etc., can vote and discuss the issues that effect them, communities could set up a participatory economy to determine ecological issues and development, etc.  Michael Albert, founder of Z Magazine, argues that in participatory economics, one would make decisions determined by the extent to which one is affected by the decisions.  For instance, only I am affected by my decision to go the bathroom, but an entire city is affected by a power plant, and an entire region by a
dam; thus, the decisions would be made by the individual or city or region accordingly.  In addition to the effects of a thing, the direction in which a community wishes to move, or the kinds of products, services, foods, etc. that a community wants available would be determined by the voices and democratic decisions of the communities.  Hence, in a participatory economy, something like innovation would not be determined as it is now, in that an inventor, artist, or some other kind of innovator can only get supported or funded if what he or she wishes to make is profitable.  Profit would not determine innovation, but rather, innovation would be determined by what is desired and needed.  Art would not be made because it is saleable, but because it is genuine.  Most important for our ecological discussion, technology and development would not be pursued because it is profitable, but rather, only if it were in the best interests of the communities.

Technology need not be something that steals jobs away from workers who need them for their livelihoods or something used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.  These uses of technology are driven by the profit of the capitalist system, whereas the use and innovation of technology in a participatory economy would be driven by the desire of people to reduce needless toil and suffering, improve communication, and whatever else serves their interests.   What makes this ecological is that it is not in people’s interests to increase cancer rates, have sewage in their backyards, eat hormone-induced meat and genetically engineered crops that reduce biodiversity and cause health problems, or lose the trees that create their oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide and provide habitats for animals.  It is not in people’s interests to use fossil fuels as we do when alternative energy is more sustainable.  Given a participatory economy where science, industry, residential and community development, transportation, and other such things are developed in the interests of and according to the decisions of the community, rather than corporations, ecological changes would be made.  Alternative energy would be explored,
industrial pollution would be reduced, biodiversity would be preserved, technology would be put to better uses, and productive activity would correspond with what is wanted and needed.   This is absolutely opposed to the capitalist representative democracy/republic system that we currently have, where decisions are made in accordance with profits and what will get politicians re-elected.

Under capitalism, people in communities are not asked what they wish to be introduced into the market, and people are not asked if they want to breath toxic fumes.  The indigenous peoples are not asked if they want plantation owners to cut down all their trees and force them to work on the plantations, and people are not asked if they want hydrogen engines and solar power technology to be suppressed by the oil industry. By its very nature, capitalism cannot bring social justice or ecological sustainability.  The environmental movement cannot bring ecological sustainability in any real terms without viewing its connection with human beings and democratic decision-making.  Neither can the movement for social justice disregard the necessity of ecological sustainability.  These are not separate issues, and they must find their solutions together in the truly participatory economic and political system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted 1/20/02 by autumn :)