Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson observed, “the constraints on the biosphere are fixed.” (Wilson, 2002) His meaning was that we are at or above the earth’s carrying capacity for sustaining human life, and change is moving in the wrong direction. Our growing population and expanding use of resources cannot be sustained by the planet, and a change will happen, whether through an intervention by human beings on their own behavior, or by the environment intervening on us. The only acceptable solution begins with changing our beliefs and attitudes about resource consumption and economic activity; and ends with a reform of the institutions that are causing ecological harm.
Given that we can’t accept a restoration of balance through some sort of collapse, an intervention on our own behavior must address one or more of the factors involved. Firstly, we could aim to reduce the human population, which must mean reducing birth rate, since the other options of increasing the death rate or reducing life span are not acceptable. Secondly, we could reduce consumption of resources. Thirdly, we could try to change carrying capacity, either through technological intervention on the earth’s ecosystem, or by terraforming another planet like Mars to be like earth (Fogg, 1995) – two ideas that seem more like science-fiction than a present-day possibility.
To effect real, lasting change in people’s behavior, we must understand the factors the influence that behavior. One such theory, called Triadic Reciprocal Determinism, states that behavior, environment, and personal factors such as knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, all influence one another. (Bandura, 1968) This suggests that lasting behavioral change should result from a change in beliefs and attitudes, and/or a change in people’s environment.
Educational programs to reduce unintentional pregnancies, and to reduce environmental impact (i.e. through recycling or water conservation) already exist, but could be expanded. For example, voluntary reduction (or non- expansion) of birth rate could be promoted as a moral issue, in the same way that recycling now is. Programs to educate people about environmental impact, such as independent labeling of products according to their environmental impact, could also increase people’s knowledge and result in positive behavioral changes.
Environmental changes, in the sense of Bandura’s triangle, are also possible. Urban planning to create cities that do not require cars (e.g. to get from home to work) could make fossil fuel consumption the exception rather than the norm. Garbage taxes, though arguably radical, could change economic incentives by causing people to consider tomorrow’s costs of resource consumption when making purchasing decisions today.
Environmental sustainability is a real and pressing concern which requires action. Yet many of our beliefs and attitudes, as well as our institutions, are not aligned with this goal – perpetuating the problem. We have the opportunity and responsibility today to reframe conservation, population growth, and economic activity as moral concerns, so that people’s behavior today does not jeopardize our future.
Wilson, E. (2002). The Future of Life (p. 33). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Fogg, M. (1995). Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments. Warrendale, PA.: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.