Allow me to begin by responding to a rather forceful argument in the second part of the essay. Mr. White argues: "Capitalism as a system of ever-accelerating production and consumption is, as we environmentalists continually insist, not sustainable. That is, it is a system intent on its own death." The validity of this argument certainly depends on your position in this debate, but I find it hard to believe that environmentalists would disregard two simple truth's. First, the world's human population has always, and will always continue to expand, NECESSITATING an increase in global consumption. Secondly, people enjoy living good lives. By "good" I do not seek to qualify an individual's preferences, needless to say I believe most individual's would define good more in relation to comfort. So why, then, do we view capitalism as a system intent on its own death? I do believe that the current nature of our consumerist mindset is problematic (I went to a Portland Trailblazers basketball game last night and couldn't BELIEVE the amount of advertising that occurs at an event like that!) However, I also truly believe that capitalism is necessary to secure a better future for EVERY individual in the world. There are two main contentions to my argument, the first being that capitalism has brought us innovation, technology, and development un-thought of before, and as a result, has benefited billions of people throughout the world. Second, that no viable, or more importantly preferable, alternative exists.
Concerning the first contention, Mr. White writes: "Our culture’s assumption that there is virtue in work flatters us into thinking that we’re doing something noble ("supporting our families,” “putting food on the table,” “making sacrifices") when we are really only allowing ourselves to be treated like automatons. We all have our place, our “job,” and it is an ever less human place. We are diligent, disciplined, and responsible, but because of these virtues we are also thoughtless." I find disagreement with this argument. For as long as I have known them, a majority of human beings would rather do less than more. They would prefer leisure to work, and would accept stagnation if it meant avoiding the rigors of development. I find it hard to believe that our society could have advanced as far as it has without the direction and guidance that "jobs" give us. Progress requires work, and dividing work up amongst a society is the best way to "focus" the energy of people, without leaving that energy to the devices of destructiveness and leisure. We have capitalism to thank for so many modern innovations that, simply put, improve (and even save) the quality of life for millions, if not billions. Medical technology is infinitesimally ahead of where it was before our society embraced capitalism. We may over-rely on pharmaceuticals, but this is the nature of a treatment method we do not yet fully understand. Likewise, the ability to feed the billions of additional people within our global population can be largely credited to the greater efficiency of capitalism. Slash and burn agriculture, an agricultural method that is wholly un-sustainable, is a product of non-capitalist environments. Further, capitalism has led to developments in agricultural technology that saves lives. Golden rice, a genetically engineered strain of rice designed to biosynthesize Vitamin A, could save millions of lives a year from death and blindness. Capitalism has brought us safer, faster transportation, communications technology to be able to speak with loved one's instantaneously, untold ability to spread knowledge and culture, and to interact with other members of our global community, to aid development of infrastructure, to house, to clothe, to protect, to educate, etc. I think my argument is clear.
Concerning the second contention, I see no preferable alternative to capitalism, save to work within the system to affect better change. Mr. White rejects this notion when he says: "In short, there would be nothing inappropriate or undesirable were we to understand our relation to nature in spiritual terms or poetic terms or, with Emerson and Thoreau, in good old American transcendental terms, but there is no broadly shared language in which to do this. So we are forced to resort to what is in fact a lower common denominator: the languages of science and bureaucracy." Mr. White believes that "green capitalism" (as he calls it) is designed not to protect the environment, but to protect capitalism itself. While I think this assertion underestimates the benefits of working within capitalism to protect the environment, I am not exactly sure how we as a society could "understand our relation to nature in spiritual terms or poetic terms". Do we throw off capitalism? And if so, for what? Feudalism? Communism? Both have demonstrated to be far more delitrious to the environment (keeping in mind we cannot compare them, technology wise, to capitalism). I understand the need to reform our consumerist mindset, and I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. We cannot consume indefinitely. But we must also recognize capitalism for what it is, a system designed to maximize the efficiency of people, and their ability to CONTRIBUTE to the progress of humyn kind. Do not reject capitalism, but also don't believe that buying shade grown Starbucks is the solution.