this was a paper written for an environmental sociology class
Science being portrayed negatively is a common trope in fictional media. It has been a common enough trope for it to be considered played out by some critics, whether it be a mad scientist or a lab experiment that went horribly wrong. However, are these fictional depictions of science an accurate representation of how we subconsciously feel regarding science? As we come face to face with the fact that our current way of living is altering the climate and depleting the finite number of resources we have, we feel compelled to turn towards science for it to bring us out of the hole we find ourselves in. Lowering carbon emissions, ending environmental inequalities, and decreasing the number of resources we extract are some of the few things science promises to accomplish in the coming years. Still, this raises a dilemma on whether we should entrust science to fulfill this promise, considering it is largely the reason we became stuck in the hole to begin with. It is fair to say that science and technology brought along a great number of benefits with it, but it equally brought along a great amount of harm. What is the role of science and knowledge when it comes to environmental issues? Can it be beneficial to nature, or is it inherently harmful? What group is favored with the use of science, and what group is left out? Lastly, if science is fundamentally harmful towards nature, what are some alternatives to adopt? Reevaluating the role of science will be an important task in the coming years, as its role will greatly impact the direction decisions are made. It is best to know the course before we sail further into the storm.
By far, the strongest argument science has going for itself is the ability to solve problems using the scientific method. With the scientific method, scientists can effectively communicate solutions after they have gone through the process of conduction observations, research, and analysis. This was seen well with Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, where she called attention to the harm DDT was having towards the environment. DDT is a pesticide that was widely used in the middle of the 20th century to eradicate insect pests in agriculture and residential areas. Growing concerned about the widespread use of pesticides, and in such a quick manner, Carson began to research the implications DDT was having on the environment. Finding that the bioaccumulation of the pesticide was proving to be a deadly disaster for birds, she began writing the book to communicate and bring attention to this issue. Using the analogy of a silent spring, Carson guides the reader to imagine the bleakness of a spring arrival where all bird calls were absent, and how it can become a possibility if change is not done. Carson also uses research that attributes cases of cancer, pesticide poisoning, and other illnesses with the use of DDT. The overarching message of the novel is the powerful and negative impact humans have on the world, and how those who use science have a responsibility towards testing and applying it without environmental harm. Despite that, it is usually in a company’s best interest to use the chemicals in a manner that best serves them financially, as was shown with the chemical industries in Silent Spring. Another example of the benefit science has towards identifying and solving problems was the research that Theo Colborn did with endocrine disrupting chemicals, which was highlighted in her book Our Stolen Future. In the book, Colborn raises the hypothesis that certain chemicals have the capacity to disrupt the endocrine system in humans. The endocrine system being the system that is responsible for secreting hormones and receiving chemical messages. As argued in the book, she proposed that nearly all humans living in the current-era have been poisoned by these chemicals, due to how prevalent they are throughout the environment and the low dosage needed to cause issues in the human body. Due to how small these chemicals are, they have the potential to bind with the chemical receptors within the endocrine system, which in turn blocks actual hormonal messaging. Due to the importance the endocrine system has regarding the reproductive system, Colborn proclaims that our capabilities towards healthy reproduction have been jeopardized by the pollutants chemical corporations have dumped into the environment, thus the inspiration for the title of the book. Since the publication of the novel, thousands of research articles have been published investigating the implications that certain chemicals have regarding endocrine disruption. With the research expanding the understanding and knowledge on the effects these chemicals have, scientists were able to better understand the health effects that chemicals had in disenfranchised communities. They found that communities living in the Artic Archipelago had some of the highest concentration of these hormonal blocking chemicals, despite being the most isolated from where these chemicals were originating. This research proved the theory that these chemicals travel via bioaccumulation, which is the process of toxins building up in an organism over the course of a time, was correct. Often illustrated as a pyramid, organisms near the top of the food chain often have the highest amount of these chemicals inside of them. Considering many of these artic communities rely on apex predators as their food source, such as seals and polar bears, they are ingesting high levels of these toxins. Scientific research gives communities, who often find themselves underrepresented and without a true voice, a better understanding of why they often find themselves sick. Findings from these experiments help guide future decision making in a better direction, discontinuing what has been found to be harmful and adopting more beneficial practices.
Knowledge can be used to liberate people from the grasp’s poisons have on the world. Using science, people are allowed to truly know the impact certain chemicals have on the environment, as well as their health, and not just take the corporation’s word for it. This was, in a sense, what the Age of Enlightenment sought out to accomplish. Starting in the 17th century, philosophers envisioned a future where people could use rational and empirical knowledge for individual freedom. Using knowledge, people could feel more secure and less manipulable from hunger and nature. While this was largely used to emancipate individuals from religious rule, the benefits of this thinking can still be seen today. As seen with the previous examples regarding health impacts from chemicals in the environment, people are allowed to get an unbiased answer to the problems they are facing. Using empirical knowledge from scientific studies, people can identify and prosecute corporations for the harm they have caused to the environment, rather than taking the corporations word for it. This knowledge liberation allows society to perform in a checks and balances system, dispersing the power of knowledge amongst the people and not just to those who have the most amount of capital. This is, however, how knowledge works in an ideal environment. While the idea behind knowledge was used to emancipate all individuals, there is certainly a certain amount of privilege and exclusion of these principles. Without proper education, someone can be easily manipulated to believe the harm a corporation contributes is minimal or is a necessary evil. This can be seen in an example of the placement of a toxic waste facility in Sacramento. A memo from Cerrell Associates was leaked on how they would select a location for a new waste facility, advising to avoid areas of middle and upper socioeconomic areas, and prioritize neighborhoods that were predominantly old, poor, and less educated. Middle and upper classes tend to be more educated, and as a result possess the knowledge and skills to identify environmental harm and to induce change. Poorer communities are often absent from such privileges, viewing a new waste facility as a job opportunity for the local community. Once the eventual health effects begin to show, these communities often have less resources and available time to fight and create change. Knowledge has been, unfortunately, an additional privilege the wealthy can possess as they live in an industrial and scientific society. It has been used to serve a certain type of thinking, as has science. People who are “unloyal” to the scientific world, or seen as slowing down progress made by science, are shunned and attributed to junk science. Rachel Carson’s findings were not immediately accepted in the scientific world, and she faced personal attacks on top of her work being discredited. Prior to the publishment of Silent Spring, society had a near unadulterated view of technological progress, seeing it only for its benefits. Industries, specifically chemical industries, did not want to taint this perception, and tried their best to dispute the claims and destroy Carson’s credibility. Despite the promise and potential science has to liberate people from a certain way of thinking, it can also be another form of imprisonment. Viewing scientific findings and knowledge purely for fact, without leaving room for alternatives, invites a slew of problems. Some of the results of this blind acceptance can be seen with our changing climate.
With the emancipation from myth that was brought along during the Enlightenment Era came alongside the emancipation of the unknown as it related to nature. With science, people were able to explain phenomena and other instances of unexplainable occurrences. Prior to Enlightenment, these unexplainable occurrences caused fear amongst people, as they turned to religion and other myths to quell this anxiety. As Enlightenment answered these occurrences, it gave people a sense of superiority over nature. Absolved from the sense of peril, nature was now seen as an explainable and controllable reality. Viewing nature as a controllable entity laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution, which began shortly after the works of the Enlightenment were published. With humans being above nature, emphasis was placed on preserving the individual rather than preserving the environment. The problems that arose with this type of thinking was highlighted by the Frankfurt School; a 20th century school of thought that aimed to explain why the Enlightenment failed to live up to its promise of liberating humanity. Rather than emancipation from myth, science became a myth of its own. It can be seen today, as we seek refuge behind the veil of promise that science offers once we are confronted with the uncomfortable realization that we are extracting and destroying our planet in an unsustainable fashion. Enlightenment gave the idea that humans were above nature, that nature is completely within human control and understanding, and that anything that is misunderstood could be explained with science. Abandoned is the biospheric values of viewing humans apart from nature, that humans and nature can live in harmony with one another. This way of thinking has clouded the judgement of scientists, as seen on how they perceived the forest islands in western Africa. Upon their initial assessment, they viewed the sporadic forest islands between villages as a symptom of deforestation. With their lens of viewing nature just as a resource, they concluded that the villagers were depleting the forests at an unsustainable rate. Upon this conclusion, initiatives were created to slow down the rate of deforestation, shipping in thousands of trees to replant the forests they thought had disappeared. Unbeknownst to them, the forests were not only not disappearing but were growing in size. The forests surrounding the villages were planted and maintained by the villagers themselves, using the forest to create protection, shade, and to nourish the soil for bigger farm yields. The villagers in western Africa were living in harmony with nature, understanding that humans are a part of nature and how it is possible to benefit without taking total control over it. The Frankfurt School argues that this clouded perception is caused by the inflation that science has in modernity, viewing it as a religion. This prevents alternative practices from gaining mass adoption in society, which could have a detrimental impact as we face climate change. Science offers a sense of comfort as it promises the false sense of self-preservation, and we expect it to continue as we address the largest issues humanity has seen. Science and knowledge have been used for pursing profits and capital, as seen by poisoning our planet and future generations. Enlightenment not only failed to emancipate humanity, it created an even bigger trap. How should society go about navigating out of the hole that Enlightenment dug us into?
To say that nothing positive emerged out of the Enlightenment Age would be a disservice, as it did promote more critical thinking that would lead to advancements in philosophy and more personal freedom. Many science advancements that emerged out of Enlightenment have also been beneficial for humanity that allows many of us to live a privileged existence today. However, the model of philosophy that the Enlightenment envisioned is not a sustainable one, and the consequences are becoming more and more apparent. The profit motives that emerged out of the need for self-preservation have caused harm and disenfranchisement for minorities and other poor communities, a depletion of our planet’s resources, as well as leading to an eventual mass extinction event due to climate change. The religion of science has proved to be just another master which humanity is manipulated by, and the realization of this allows humanity to conceive of alternative ways to liberate from this type of thinking. A starting direction we could take is to deviate from the conception that humans are above nature, that we have nature understood, and that this thinking will liberate ourselves. As seen with the deforestation example in western Africa, the scientific lens we view the world deprives us of considering sustainable alternatives. The desire for knowledge that emerged out of the Enlightenment is a symptom of control; to control one’s fate and to control nature. Like the religion that Enlightenment promised to liberate humanity from, knowledge offers an illusion of control, as knowing about a phenomenon or how something operates prevents the possibility of being controlled or manipulated. The comfort that control offers becomes unsatiable, constantly being required to ease the sense of anxiety. When we give ourselves to nature, when we presume that we are not above nature and instead apart from it, we give up our sense of control. While this will lead to an initial sense of dread, it will absolve our urge to seek domination and in turn, allow us to live in more harmony with the natural environment. Concluding that no amount of control will quell that internal worry, we then open ourselves up to the alternative ways we can live our lives. Ultimately, this leads to the question of the essay: what is the role that science and knowledge have regarding environmental issues? Perhaps it is knowledge that humanity is predestined to have myths in our culture, that no amount of avoiding it will result in an absence of it. For as long as recorded human history, myths have been the constant. Nature is an ever-going mystery, one full of awe and enchantment. Myths help sustain these feelings, remind us to appreciate what is out there and act in a way to help preserve the wonder in the world. Instead of trying to avoid these myths, to seek answers and certainty in all aspects of the world, we should maintain a certain level of mystique regarding it. As we keep this aspect in our lives, we can use knowledge and science to help sustain the world to keep our awe living through the generations will come after us. Myths offer a passage to connect us to reality, as opposed to the Enlightenment which sought to answer the questions of reality. Crafting an absolute answer to the world around us robs of the appreciation that lies around every corner of the world. Contrary to the belief that the Enlightenment thinkers shared, myths do not cause individuals to be manipulated, it allows individuals to take comfort in a daunting universe.
