The Observer, November 2, 2007
Volume XL, Issue 9
Political Connection: Growing problem of pollution will end world with whimper
In his poem The Hollow Men, T. S. Eliot predicts: "This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper." Similarly, many an amateur modern physicist, upon the discovery of the idea of "The Big Chill," has wept at the idea that our universe could end in a continual expansion until the energy density of the universe fades to zero, sending all matter to absolute zero in temperature. These final pictures are not those of mythology and pop media, yet they somehow seem to be more effective at casting minds into existential crises. Reinforcing the prototypical images of our destruction with lakes of fire and towers falling, Mega Disasters of the History Channel analyzes possible methane explosions, comet impacts, gamma ray bursts, and various other exciting and singular extinction scenarios. However, to me and others, a far worse fate is to simply be extinguished by nothing, with no agent behind the demise, no defining moments of heroism or folly, and no cause for pride – not a tragedy, or a comedy.
Pollution of the planet, the pathetic, accidental suicide of negligence, is one of these demoralizing destructions that is not usually a part of your quintessential Armageddon image. It is, however, more imminent, and more under human control than those that we more often picture involving anti-Christs or mushroom clouds. We have no say in whether our universe ends in heat death or oscillates into a big bounce, but this more terrestrial risk factor lies well within the scope of human responsibility. Ivan Klíma, a Czech author, writes in Love and Garbage, "The Apocalypse can take different forms. The least dramatic, at first sight, is the one in which man perishes under an avalanche of useless objects, empty words, and excessive activity." Unless the crossing of the solar system across the galactic equator in 2012 causes the "mega disaster" that destroys us first, Klíma's vision – about as close to Eliot's whimper as we can get – will likely become a reality.
On what grounds do I claim this? You may have heard, but there's a patch of the Pacific Ocean the size of Africa covered in trash. It has six times more plastic than plankton as of 2002, according to researcher Charles Moore. He expected that ratio to grow to 60 by 2012. It's not made from industrial waste, which is produced in the largest volumes, but mainly grocery and garbage bags – household jetsam. All of us who live with the everyday convenience of disposable bags are accelerating the rate at which we bury ourselves in trash. Large masses of plastic end up in this garbage patch due to the circular currents surrounding the area. Waste from California and Japan collects there, away from popular sight and mind. Not only is the prospect of cleaning it up absurd, it is also useless, since it is merely a symptom of a growing, global problem.
This is indeed disheartening, and motivation for change is hard to come by, due to the oppressive scope of the problem and the minuscule effect of the individual. Despite what it seems, however, the destruction of the Earth is not an inevitable consequence of progress, but the result of our unconditional pursuit for money. Not surprisingly, GDP is very closely correlated to waste production. However, it is a correlation with which some countries, mainly of the EU, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable. There are efforts by certain communities to put economic pressure on corporations to reduce waste by strategically taxing certain kinds of transactions that lead to waste. These efforts are slowing the acceleration of waste production. This is by no means causing a reversal of adverse effects on the environment, but it is achievement nonetheless. This is positive, but it is apparently not strict enough, as the problem is relentlessly growing.
Sickeningly, of the events that could lead to our demise, the ones that are most ominously creeping upon us are the very ones we as a species have the power to control most effectively. We are just a few altruists away from defusing the threat of nuclear war, yet it persists. Pollution is a bigger, more deep-seated problem, but we could easily give up some economic growth without dire consequences for the survival of the species by constricting regulations and pouring some of our funds into developing alternative, earth-friendly resources and habits. What human would sacrifice the human race for some quarterly profit?
Unfortunately, it is not some few individuals, but corporations which control the largest amounts of money. Their behavior is not the sum of their constituent human parts. They can and do spend it on various government meddling strategies for candidates, from simple lobbying to more malicious smear campaigns and the like, preventing progress in the realm of environmental protection. Why is the prospect of ending up recipients of some cosmic Darwin Award not motivation enough for those with political power in the world to combat the Ragnorak of rubbish – to use the resources we currently squabble over in today's trash-making pursuits for our own salvation? Will we end up in a mire of our own filth before those with the money can force their eyes from the spreadsheets and stock charts?
David Noll is a senior cognitive science major.
