Civilization's Wake: Ecology, Economics and the Roots of Environmental Destruction and Neglect

Abstract

In this chapter we will examine some of the ecological and social ramifications of the thesis that one of the principal ideological sources of our present environmental crisis is orthodox neoclassical economics. Insofar as economic agents approximate “Rational Economic Men” maximizing their expected utility in a global technoindustrial capitalist system embodying such values, environmental degradation will occur. According to this view, often associated with radical environmentalism and “deep ecology” (Naess, 1973; Manes, 1990), it is our present growth-based economic system which lies at the heart of the environmental crisis. This view has been argued for by many (for a review see (Lyons et al, 1995)) but a particularly clear expression of this sentiment is given by the deep ecologist Andrew McLaughlin in Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology (1993). McLaughlin notes that the present day ills of Western economies, such as unemployment and urban poverty, are blamed on a lack of economic growth by our politicians and mainstream economists. Consequently unemployment and urban poverty can only be cured by increasing industrial production. However, if there is a global ecological crisis then increased economic growth (arguments below) leads to increased environmental destruction and increased resource use. Consequently we are faced with a “fateful dilemma”: “Either we pursue economic growth and ecological collapse, or we seek ecological sustainability and economic collapse” (McLaughlin, 1993, ix).