The Problem of the Global Environment

- Between the individual and the species,
and between "to survive" and "to live" -

Shunsuke Mori
Professor, Faculty of Science and Technology
Science University of Tokyo

Today, the global environment is no longer a matter of fervent interest to scientific researchers only. I find that students are greatly interested in it too. At the bookstore, there are shelves marked: "Environmental Issues." At the library, it's even possible to find several volumes of picture books explaining the subject to children in simple visual images.

The piles of research mount up, many national and international conferences are being organized in the academic and even industrial spheres, and phenomenal volumes of information are being exchanged, on a global scale. However, this rise in interest is not necessarily leading to a solution of the problem; after all, not only scientists but now everyone else is caught up in the problem. Despite the fact that development and the environment have been recognized as one issue, the word sustainability is subject to numerous interpretations, and the difficulties of finding a solution have become, if anything, more acute.

The first impression I have when attending conferences in Japan and overseas is the breadth and diversity of the background of the participants. The importance of the global warming and CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) gas problems were both pointed out initially by physicists. The energy and material resources problems, following the oil shock, attracted the concern of engineers and economists. Soon after that, when discussions began to involve talk of treaties, systems, and other practicalities, industrialists, politicians, and lawyers came to the fore, and gradually the administrative role became significant.

There again, global warming causes changes to the hydrosphere and the ecology. The forests and the demand for food supplies are impacted by these changes. Agriculturalists and botanists are conducting related studies of global warming and ecological damage and they have made all-out efforts in recent years to communicate the importance of their academic viewpoint. In such ways, contemporary problems have spread across all fields of academic study. And while the search has been going on for the thread that will lead to the solution, the upshot has been that all kinds of scientists are having no choice but to enter areas outside their specialization.

I want to look at the environmental issue from a fresh viewpoint. What, actually is the problem? These key words "sustainable development" -- what are they all about, what do they involve, and, continuing from that, what are we seeking to protect?

When the answers to our questions seem self-evident at a glance, why is it so difficult to find solutions? I want to make reference to Abraham Maslow, an American Psychologist in attempting a discussion of this multi-faceted problem.

The thesis of efficient and equable distribution of what we call "limited resources" among all people is an idea that nobody can dispute. However, compared to the abstract nature of "human beings," the myself that I perceive as "the individual" and those that I refer to as "my family" or "my race" have much more reality.

In the beginning, in order to get away from the horror of destitution, people realized an existence as individuals or members of a race at a "to survive" level. The reason for the evolution of groups was due to the transition up the hierarchy of need from the concept of "to survive" to that of "safety." And then the need for esteem from other groups led to a sense of prestige and from time to time even to "to live." The term "sustainability" covers for people between "to survive" and "to live." However, that was the source of the great unhappiness that ranks alongside the original horror of destitution--that is to say, war.

At this point, the group that came into existence for the survival of the individual became a menace to the individual, which is a contradiction in terms. Above all, the craving for "life" in its fullest sense became pitched against mere "to survive," which was the most fundamental contradiction of all.

If the individuals or group in question and the level of desire can be unified, then we may speculate that the problem would not have emerged. Let us say that the concept of the state ("law") was, like the concepts of "commandments," or "god" or "morality" or "ideology," introduced as a "superior level of existence" that would resolve the above contradictions. We could then go on to say that the four concepts mentioned above tend to regard consumption as a vice with a view to assuring the existence of future generations through the reduction of present-day consumption. Progressively, those concepts come to stand in opposition to the purposes of the state.

Ultimately, that scenario does not serve to achieve restraint on present-day consumption. Conversely, it is the very "consumption society" achieved through economic growth that led to the resolution of domestic conflict and poverty. And in what the individuals concerned experience as a realistic state of affairs, there is a place for self-actualization--that is to say, an individuality based on culture, not on force of arms. Today, strife between races has not been eliminated, but we have enjoyed a long era of abundant trade and co-existence among peoples.

However, when production could not support consumption and qualitative differences became apparent, so too did the appearance of "outsiders," the dispossessed. In a climate of social dissatisfaction, as soon as an individual feels his existence is threatened, so, progressively, this leads to large-scale tragedy. The dispossessed give birth to the dispossessed. Yutaka Haniya, a Japanese novelist, complains of those who, whatever system prevails, can do no more than shout "There's the enemy. Kill the bastards!"

And then there is the problem of the environment. If our current consumption society is unsupportable then our awareness must be functioning to the highest power. The question is, how far that we might call the human species can sustain this awareness.

If there is a policy for solving the environmental problem, then it is one that leads from the concept of "individual" to that of "species," fulfilling the conditions of progression from subsistence to "to live." Or, at the very least, not violating them. The problem of material and energy resources cannot be talked about only in terms of averages; these resources, in the form of employment and consumption, must ensure the minimum conditions for the "to live" of the individual.

The distribution problem is of the essence. The social system must be such as to neither threaten nor invoke threat from "outsiders." It is true that consumption is not a quest merely for material resources but one of culture, which involves the application of wisdom. Such a resolution must be engaged in with the same level of commitment, regardless of where in the world it is implemented, and by successive generations to come.

Should you ask whether such a solution is possible, I can only say that as a researcher I am only searching in one small sector of the conditions required for change. However, if we look again at those academic fields engaged in environmental issues, it is noticeable that two significant domains are missing. Namely, those that are concerned with humanity: cultural sciences and medicine.

In the search for solutions that fill the gap between the individual and the species, and between "to survive" and "to live," we hope to hear the proposals of those humanitarian domains of understanding.