Scaly-breasted munia
Thailand’s bird ladies give a
discount for volume. It is Ahsalahabucha Day, a Thai celebration of Buddha’s
first sermon to his first five followers. I pay to release two birds, examining
them before I set them free. They are scaly-breasted munias – twittering
finch-like birds common on fields in flocks. If they reach maturity, their
breast-plumage will take on its trademark brown and white scale-like pattern.
My birds are fledglings, however; they are not strong, and their survival in
the wild will be perilous. I wonder about this transaction. A woman holds for
ransom two small creatures, and then they fly free. She now has a small amount
of cash. But what does the purchaser have?
A practising Buddhist might gain
some merit toward getting off the eternal Mandela of life, suffering and death.
What I have gained, I am not sure. I do know, however, that it needs
investigation. There is a metaphor here. Let’s follow it. Buddha’s first sermon
enunciated the four principles of Buddhism – the Four Noble Truths. All things
are a source of suffering, he taught. Because it can never be fully satisfied,
desire is the cause of suffering. Freedom from suffering can only be obtained
through the cessation of desire. Lastly, moderation between the extremes of
sensualism and asceticism – “the middle way” – can eliminate desire and
therefore suffering. With these teachings, he set off a chain reaction that
transformed much of Asian society.
Twenty-five hundred years later,
Asian societies whose kindness and gentility owe much to these ideas are
rushing headlong into market economies, thereby beginning a different kind of
transformation. They are responding to market economics so effectively that
they are beating the creators of capitalism at their own game. As the pennant
of capitalism moves across Asia, however, it is being handed to peoples for
whom some of its fundamental ideas are culturally absurd. For example, many
scholars maintain that capitalism arose out of the oldest known environmental
mission statement: ''be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue
it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.''
Control over nature is woven into
the fabric of western society as a moral imperative. In the prevailing view in
much of Asia, however, mastery over nature can be nothing less than illusion.
Moreover, the motor of market economics is the idea that maximum consumption
leads to maximum satisfaction. This notion is fundamentally at odds with
Buddha’s concept of the middle way. Even so, it is common intellectual currency
in the vast cities of Shanghai, Mumbai and Bangkok to describe these years as
Asia’s Century.
In this century, goes the thinking,
the mainland's nations will continue to bring people out of poverty at record
rates. In this century, previously impoverished countries will develop consumer
economies to rival those of America, Europe and Japan. The countries of Asia
have already become the workshops of the world; in this century, they will
advance that position.
Outside my windows are two miles of
lush green fields which end abruptly at the foot of a range of jungled
mountains – distant foothills of the Himalayas. I live in a provincial outpost
in Thailand – an economically insignificant country in the Third World. My home
is in the northern periphery of Southeast Asia – a clutch of nations that
shelter more than half a billion souls. To the north is China, with its huge
population; to the west, India with its equally teeming cities, towns and
villages. Together, these mostly prospering countries host more than half the
world’s population. Justifiably, they all want to continue to prosper, and
their demands upon the planet are rapidly increasing.
In Asia’s Century, countless
bicycles are giving way to motorbikes. Water buffalo are still yielding to
mechanized farm equipment. Bangkok's legendary traffic jams tell the
continent’s story of rocketing automobile demand. The economic growth in this
region will lead to resource depletion on an extraordinary scale in Asia’s
Century. Suppose, for example, each Asian begins to demand four barrels of oil
per year instead of less than two barrels today – a big increase, but per
person consumption still dramatically below that of the rich countries. Suppose
also that production and consumption elsewhere do not change.
Using those simplistic assumptions,
new Asian demand would soon consume almost all the oil the OPEC cartel now
delivers to global markets. Inside and outside the Arabian Peninsula, the
world’s great basins of conventional oil are in steep decline. Seen against the
few thousand years since civilization began, a century is a considerable time.
However, it is almost nothing when compared to the epochs since cellular life
debuted on primordial seas and oceans.
Life exploded onto the planet
during the Cambrian period of geologic time, beginning 540 million years ago.
Its organisms were the raw material for the first oil. Now the world’s most
widely traded commodity, oil supplies about 95 per cent of all transportation
fuels and 40 per cent of the world's commercial energy. Think of the ages since
life and oil began to form as if they have been ticking by on the face of a
grandfather clock, starting in the earliest moments of the morning.
It was not until early afternoon
that dinosaurs evolved and began to roam. They dominated Earth until seven
minutes after nine in the evening. While oil has been developing on this
imaginary clock for almost 24 hours, the petroleum industry – now the world’s
largest business – did not emerge until five hundredths of a second before
midnight. Yet on the stroke of twelve, the last of the world’s conventional oil
will be gone. That will be the case whether production lasts for another
hundred years, or two hundred.
We are clever apes indeed, but we cannot
replace half a billion years’ accumulation of this vital energy. During the few
hundredths of a second since we began consuming oil, we have become much
wealthier. Indeed, our wealth is now so closely linked to oil consumption, and
our lives are so dependent upon it, that Daniel Yergin’s magisterial history of
the industry defined contemporary humanity as Hydrocarbon Man. As Hydrocarbon
Man becomes wealthier, we eat more fish – mostly from the world ocean that gave
rise to life itself.
Consider the consequences. A recent letter to
the respected scientific journal Nature rattled the academic and environmental
communities when it described the results of a lengthy study of the world’s
commercial fisheries. This dry report concludes that 90 percent of the raw mass
of predatory wild fish in the world’s oceans has disappeared in the last half
century. They have been fished out.
Even so, radar and satellite
finding techniques and other tools are making the industry’s fishing arsenal
more effective. Thus, the entrapment of species is intensifying, not
diminishing. Will the world’s fishing fleets soon be trawling empty seas? In a
widely quoted statement, the two authors – both academic marine biologists –
made no secret of their concern. “From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin
tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has
scoured the global ocean,” said one. “There is no blue frontier left….This
isn't just about one species. The sustainability of fisheries is being severely
compromised worldwide.” Added the other, "These are the megafauna, the big
predators of the sea, and the species we most value. Their depletion not only
threatens the future of these fish and the fishers that depend on them, it
could also bring about a complete reorganization of ocean ecosystems, with
unknown global consequences."
Such stories make human societies
seem like cancers on the body of the planet – clusters of cells gone wild,
gobbling resources at rates that threaten the very systems that make life
possible. But the image is flawed: the death of the creature does not spell the
death of creation. During the last half billion years, there have been several
great extinctions – geologically brief periods in which countless species
suddenly died out. But life always went on, and it will.
We need nature, but nature does not
need us. The difference between the extinctions of the present era and those of
the ancient past is that today’s are being driven by species rather than act of
God. For the first time since the paleontological clock began ticking, one
species has grown strong enough to threaten much of the planet.
This is the case for humanity as
the bird in the bamboo cage. Who is holding that cage? Call her Earth Mother.
Call her Gaia. Call her Bird Lady. The cage she holds is one of our making. As
far as I can figure, the base price we will have to offer for our freedom is an
exit from the treadmill of ever-greater consumption – abandonment of the notion
that greater consumption for greater satisfaction is the proper engine of
growth.
Such an idea was sustainable during
the millennia in which personal consumption was small relative to the richness
of the planet’s wealth. This is no longer so, and soon Asia’s rapid growth will
force the issue. To be sprung from our cage, we must collectively endorse the
notion of wise consumption in the interest of greater well-being.
What form that will take, I do not
know. But as those moments of crisis arrive, I am sure Asia will have the upper
hand. If this is Asia’s Century, it is not only because the continent has
comparative economic advantages – among others, cheap labour, land and
infrastructure – compared to the rich world. It is also because these nations
have a living history of modest consumption. They have cultural traditions that
make it relatively simple for large numbers of people to quickly shift back
into a subsistence economy: such behaviour saved Thailand after the currency
crisis of 1997, for example. In addition, many Asians hold deep-rooted beliefs
sanctifying moderate consumption in the interest of a life of greater depth and
substance. The fourth noble truth is one such idea.
By contrast, in the rich world
there is little sense of the large gap of irrelevance between consumption and
happiness, despite a wealth of academic findings about the relationship between
the two. Psychology says happiness does not appear to depend significantly on
external circumstances such as wealth, which many economists define as the
ability to consume. In the world’s most consumptive nations, happiness levels
today are no greater than they were fifty years ago. Indeed, in some cases the
contrary may well be the case.
Westerners have consumed greatly,
but not wisely. My children still live in Canada, a resource-rich country whose
small numbers have lived abundantly off Earth’s wealth for centuries. I worry
because they will inherit a world from which so much of nature’s bounty has
been drained. Because Canada and the other rich countries have lived so well
for so long, their children have no collective memory of times or traditions in
which greater consumption was not society’s primary economic goal, and may have
great trouble adapting to a globe without many of the riches which always
before have been so easy to exploit. Will they fledge into a natural world so
impoverished that even the option of small cage versus perils of freedom is
unavailable?
August 2003
No comments:
Post a Comment