Protecting our Ecology and the Awareness for Life* (translated)

Protecting our Ecology and the Awareness for Life*

English Translation of 生态的保护与生命的觉醒 by Jeffrey Chan

(original Chinese article by 霍韬晦 appeared on Jan 11, 2010, Lianhe Zaobao, Singapore)

Humanity’s ecological problems are only getting worse. Everyone only sees his or her immediate benefit in a great narrowing of horizons. Except for the brink of disaster, no one is fully aware of today’s predicament. But when disaster strikes, it will be all too late! 

Humanity has entered a new era through the power of technology. But also because of the use of technology, new complex problems have emerged. The most obvious of these problems are: climate change, pollution, melting ice, dwindling resources, sinking land, vast reductions in forest lands, massive desertfication ...All these have caused countless worries: can there still be a tomorrow for the world? One wonders. Can man exist without his environment? 

It is precisely because of these worries that we have the 2009 Copenhagen Summit. The goal of the summit is to reduce global carbon emissions, and to ensure that warming in the century will not rise above the safe limit for survival. 190 countries were presented at the summit; and almost 120 leaders attended in an unprecedented summit that lasted nearly two weeks. But the entourage and convoys surrounding these leaders--bodyguards, bureaucrats, journalists and activists--had already ‘polluted’ Copenhagen. Pollution of planes and cars had antagonized thousands of environmental activists into a destructive display of social conflict with security at the summit. 

The Copenhagen Summit as Political Performance

Even after deploying so many leaders, minds and resources, the regrettable thing is that there is so little to show for it all. Each party in attendance seemed happy to merely say his or her piece without trying to close the mutual distance between parties. Whether it is the developed countries or the developing countries, nobody seemed willing to commit to new mutually binding agreements, nor to accept mutually binding regulations. This has made the plan emerging from the summit hollow and fictitious. 

The failure of Copenhagen has reflected the value of self-preservation and self-protectionism of these individual nation-states. Most of these political leaders are merely ‘performing’ in order to secure the confidence and votes of their respective constituency. For example the United States is the country with the largest emissions; but during the summit, the US has suggested an absolute standard of reduction for individual countries, rather than a relative one according to the needs of (developing) countries. This absolute standard is clearly unfair to China with 1.3 billion people or India with 1 billion in population. Because no one is willing to commit to greater emission cuts, the graver consequences following from this unwillingness will be a rise above the 2 degree Celsius average global temperature mark in this century--the very mark that demarcates a safer world from a more hazardous world. Despite the fact that everyone is claiming to accept responsibilities, reality is nearer to the adage of ‘each for himself and responsibility for the other’. Therefore after the summit, developed countries pointed the spearhead at China and by this act, complicated the Sino-American relationship. 

The truth is that even with a mutually binding accord, this accord will be inconsequential. Observing history, global summits tend to be merely filled with empty talks; it has never been easy to implement a mutually binding accord. Furthermore, implementation demands regulation: but who will perform this regulatory role? Even though the United Nations has the executive power to deploy troops, this executive act still demands the unanimous support of all constituent members at the UN. Moreover, what we are discussing here is the environment, which calls not for military action but political solidarity. And because our pressing problems call for political solidarity, they are therefore political problems that can only be solved by a political act. 

What does this tell us? It tells us that humanity’s ecological problems are only getting worse. Everyone only sees their immediate benefit. Except for the brink of disaster, nobody is aware of the danger. But when disaster strikes, awareness would be too late! 

This situation is likened to the Financial Tsunami. Before it occurred, many had already perceived the dangers. They have even tried sounding the alarm but no one believed them during those prosperous days. It was not until the Tsunami struck that people tried to think of an escape. But then, it had became all too late. 

The Consequences of Greed and Inertia is Foolishness

How is it that humanity is so foolish? This is because of greed and inertia. And this is because everyday reality is always nearer than faraway dangers. And although the individual may be alarmed to these dangerous prospects, this individual nonetheless believes that he or she will be spared. This pathology is the seed of self-conceit and is the root cause of self-destruction. 

The self-destructive tendency of humanity is evident in history. Self-destruction comes not because humanity is unintelligent, nor because humanity is incapable. Instead, it is the over-ambitiousness of mankind that is at the root of self-destruction. The father of Emperor Ching was a very successful entrepreneur and investor. But he gambled by investing in his unborn son. He was of course successful in this gambit because his son turned out to be the emperor that united China. Yet he was forced to death by this same son. Or take the example of the politician Sang in the Ching dynasty, who in order to change the political laws of his country coerced civilians into tools of war and in the same act, legislated draconian laws. However when he lost his political support, he fled to the borders. At the border, he tried to check in to an inn but fearful of what he had done, he did not dare to reveal his identity. Responding to his inability to provide identity the innkeeper said: without your identity you cannot check in, for this is the law mandated by the political Sang (himself)’. It was then that Sang realized that he had just caused his own demise. Or take another example during the Three Kingdoms. Yang Siu, a high official of Lord Cao, liked to flaunt his intelligence and wit. His habit of flaunting caused him to make many reckless remarks. In the end, one of these remarks exposed the hidden schemes of Lord Cao and Lord Cao put him to death. The stories of such self-destruction are too many. As the proverb goes, ‘making the law that causes one’s demise’ (作法自毙), many tyrants, usurpers, manipulators and flatterers all walked this path of self-destruction. 

This is one of the greatest mystery of life. In Buddhism, it is said that along with greed, passion and infatuation, humanity has 84,000 other anxieties and worries--all but one can cause one’s destruction. In Christianity, it is said that the original sin caused mankind to be expelled from the paradise of Eden to wander the ends of the earth. In Confucianism, it is said that to the one who causes his self-demise, he must accept the fruits of his own destruction. Even so, it is plain to see that for some reason, mankind has been unable to transcend the boundary of his limitation. Are not all the inventors of complex financial instruments very intelligent individuals? But the cause of the Financial Tsunami is also because of these intelligent individuals. In the same way, the ecological crisis and climate change are also the fruits of intelligent men and women. For unlimited profiteering and creature comforts in life, individuals of the past do not mind polluting the Earth or exploiting its resources. Today, it will become necessary to sacrifice many times more than these paltry profits and comforts in order to redeem the Earth. 

The Chinese has a saying: if one is to know beforehand his predicament today, why would he (want) take the same action yesterday? But mankind never has a ‘beforehand’. All criminals are those that try the law. Beside, innovation (in technology) is always well-justified: after all, civilization must progress, life demands improvements and prosperity must increase...These are all great justifications. But in the end, all these are merely seductive packaging--packaging that causes one’s own seduction and inevitable demise. 

Mankind is weak. To satiate this weakness is natural; but unlimited satisfaction leads to decadence and destruction. 

I am not suggesting for the regression of civilization. The philosopher Lao Zhi once said that man must return to his original state of nature, or to the idea of the noble savage where he would be just as innocent and pure as a baby. Clearly this is merely an empty thought experiment because who would want to go against his nature of growth? But this is not unthinkable if mankind attains change through education and enlightenment (教化). 

Where would we find this education and enlightenment? We would find them in religious thinking and philosophy, and in Confucianism. But in the modern society where extrinsic success is so valued, the voices of religious thinking, philosophy and Confucianism are remotely small: who can hear them? Confronting now the dual challenges of mankind--both the threat to ecology (environment) and life--are you willing to become ‘aware’? 

How do we find optimism in pessimism? And how do we stand firm before temptations and seductions? These are the perennial questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered. In the same way, these questions also stand as veritable tests for mankind’s culture and civilization. But if culture and civilization cannot aid mankind in these tests, do we still have a use for them? 

2010 has already arrived. To the one who has rightful ambition this is food for thought. 

霍韬晦 (Huo TaoHui) is the Research Director of Singapore East Asia Research Institute (新加坡东亚人文研究所)

Translated by Jeffrey Chan

*Translator notes: 

(1) I translated this chinese article for non-commercial reason and because this article parallels my own interest. It is also because I cannot afford the english translation by some online software from the newspaper company. 

(2) I have taken a direct translation rhetoric, and hence a few lines here and there may seem rather awkward in english. 

(3) I have translated 生态 as ‘ecology’ in some places and in other places, interpreted as ‘the environment’. 

(4) For bi-lingual readers, please comment and correct my translation where possible and needed.