social ethics questions

zachzhang

file11.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >social ethics questions

Global Ecology and the Common Good

John Bellamy Foster

"The Treadmill of Production"

(Editors' note: This essay is a revised version of a keynote luncheon

address delivered at "Watersheds '94," a conference organized by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. The piece was originally published in

1995 and is reprinted here by permission of John Bellamy Foster and

Monthly Review.)

Foster 2

Over the course of the twentieth century human population has increased more than

threefold and gross world product perhaps twentyfold. Such expansion has placed

increasing pressure on the ecology of the planet. Everywhere we look--in the atmosphere,

oceans, watersheds, forests, soil, etc.--it is now clear that rapid ecological decline is

setting in.1

Faced with the frightening reality of global ecological crisis, many are now calling for

a moral revolution that would incorporate ecological values into our culture. This demand

for a new ecological morality is, I believe, the essence of Green thinking. The kind of

moral transformation envisaged is best captured by Aldo Leopold's land ethic, which

said,

We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.

When we begin to see land as a community to which we belong, we may

begin to use it with love and respect.

Yet behind most appeals to ecological morality there lies the presumption that we live in

a society where the morality of the individual is the key to the morality of society. If

people as individuals could simply change their moral stance with respect to nature and

alter their behavior in areas such as propagation, consumption, and the conduct of

business, all would be well.2

What is all too often overlooked in such calls for moral transformation is the central

institutional fact of our society: what might be called the global "treadmill of production."

The logic of this treadmill can be broken down into six elements. First, built into this

global system, and constituting its central rationale, is the increasing accumulation of

wealth by a relatively small section of the population at the top of the social pyramid.

Second, there is a long-term movement of workers away from self-employment and into

wage jobs that are contingent on the continual expansion of production. Third, the

competitive struggle between businesses necessitates on pain of extinction of the

allocation of accumulated wealth to new, revolutionary technologies that serve to expand

production. Fourth, wants are manufactured in a manner that creates an insatiable hunger

for more. Fifth, government becomes increasingly responsible for promoting national

economic development, while ensuring some degree of "social security" for a least a

portion of its citizens. Sixth, the dominant means of communication and education are

part of the treadmill, serving to reinforce its priorities and values.3

A defining trait of the system is that it is a kind of giant squirrel cage. Everyone, or

nearly everyone, is part of this treadmill and is unable or unwilling to get off. Investors

and managers are driven by the need to accumulate wealth and to expand the scale of

their operations in order to prosper within a globally competitive milieu. For the vast

majority the commitment to the treadmill is more limited and indirect: they simply need

to obtain jobs at livable wages. But to retain those jobs and to maintain a given standard

of living in these circumstances it is necessary, like the Red Queen in Through the

Looking Glass, to run faster and faster in order to stay in the same place.

Foster 3

In such an environment, as the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur

Schopenhauer once said, "A man can do what he wants. But he can't want what he

wants." Our wants are conditioned by the kind of society in which we live. Looked at in

this way, it is not individuals acting in accordance with their own innate desires, but

rather the treadmill of production on which we are all placed that has become the main

enemy of the environment.4

Clearly, this treadmill leads in a direction that is incompatible with the basic

ecological cycles of the planet. A continuous 3 percent average annual rate of growth in

industrial production, such as obtained from 1970 to 1990, would mean that world

industry would double in size every twenty-five years, grow sixteenfold approximately

every century, increase by 250 times every two centuries, 4,000 times every three

centuries, etc. Further, the tendency of the present treadmill of production is to expand

the throughput of raw materials and energy because the greater this flow, from extraction

through the delivery of final products to consumers, the more opportunity there is to

realize profits. In order to generate profits, the treadmill relies heavily on energy-

intensive, capital-intensive technology, which allows it to economize on labor inputs. Yet

increased throughput and more substitution of energy and machines for labor mean a

more rapid depletion of high-quality energy sources and other natural resources, and a

larger amount of wastes dumped into the environment. It is unlikely therefore that the

world could sustain many more doublings of industrial output under the present system

without experiencing a complete ecological catastrophe. Indeed, we are already

overshooting certain critical ecological thresholds.5

Matters are made worse by the tendency in recent decades to move from "gross

insults" to the environment to "microtoxicity." As synthetic products (like plastic) are

substituted for natural ones (like wood and wool), the older pollutants associated with

nineteenth-century industrialization are being replaced by more hazardous pollutants such

as those resulting from chlorine-related (organochlorine)production--the source of DDT,

dioxin, Agent Orange, PCBs, and CFCs. The degree of toxicity associated with a given

level of output has thus risen fairly steadily over the last half century.6

It would seem, then, that from an environmental perspective we have no choice but to

resist the treadmill of production. This resistance must take the form of a far-reaching

moral revolution. In order to carry out such a moral transformation we must however

confront what the great American sociologist C. Wright Mills called "the higher

immorality" built into the institutions of power in our society--in particular the treadmill

of production. "In a civilization so thoroughly business-penetrated as America," he wrote,

money becomes "the one unambiguous marker of success . . . the sovereign American

value." Such a society, dominated by the corporate rich with the support of the political

power elite, is a society of "organized irresponsibility," where moral virtue is divorced

from success and knowledge from power. Public communication, rather than constituting

the basis for the exchange of ideas necessary for the conduct of a democracy, is largely

given over to "an astounding volume of propaganda for commodities . . . addressed more

often to the belly or to the groin than to the head or the heart." The corrupting influence

that all of this has on the general public is visible in the loss of the capacity for moral

Foster 4

indignation, the growth of cynicism, a drop in political participation, and the emergence

of a passive commercially centered existence. In short, the higher immorality spells the

annihilation of a meaningful moral and political community.7

Manifestations of this higher immorality--in which money divorced from all other

considerations has become the supreme reality--are all around us. In 1992 alone U.S.

business spent perhaps $1 trillion on marketing, simply convincing people to consume

more and more goods. this exceeded by about $600 billion the amount spent on

education--public and private--at all levels. Under these circumstances we can expect

people to grow up with their heads full of information about saleable commodities, and

empty of knowledge about human history, morality, culture, science, and the

environment. What is most valued in such a society is the latest style, the most expensive

clothing, the finest car. Hence, it is not surprising that more than 93 percent of teenage

girls questioned in a survey conducted in the late 1980s indicated that their favorite

leisure activity was to go shopping. Not long ago Fortune magazine quoted Dee Hock,

former head of the Visa bank card operation, as saying, "It's not that people value money

more but that they value everything else so much less--not that they are more greedy but

that they have no other values to keep greed in check." "Our social life is organized in

such a way," German environmentalist Rudolf Bahro has observed,

that even people who work with the hands are more interested in a better

car than in the single meal of the slum-dweller on the southern half of the

earth or the need of the peasant there for water; or even a concern to

expand their own consciousness, for their own self-realization.

Reflecting on the growing use of pesticides in our society, Rachel Carson wrote that this

was indicative of "an era dominated by industry, in which the right of make money, at

whatever cost to others, is seldom challenged."8

Given the nature of the society in which we live, one must therefore be wary of

solutions to environmental problems that place too much emphasis on the role of

individuals, or too little emphasis on the treadmill of production and the higher

immorality that it engenders. To be sure, it is necessary for individuals to struggle to

organize their lives so that in their consumption they live more simply and ecological.

But to lay too much stress on this alone is to place too much onus on the individual, while

ignoring institutional facts. Alan Durning of the Worldwatch Institute, for example,

argues that

we consumers have an ethical obligation to curb our consumption, since it

jeopardizes the chances for future generation. Unless we climb down the

consumption ladder a few rungs, our grandchildren will inherit a planetary

home impoverished by our affluence.

This may seem like simple common sense but it ignores the higher immorality of a

society like the United States in which the dominant institutions treat the public as mere

consumers to be targeted with all of the techniques of modern marketing. The average

Foster 5

adult in the United States watches 21,000 television commercials a year, about 75 percent

of which are paid for by the 100 largest corporations. It also ignores the fact that the

treadmill of production is rooted not in consumption but in production. Within the

context of this system it is therefore economically naive to think that the problem can be

solved simply be getting consumers to refrain from consumption and instead to save and

invest their income. To invest means to expand the scale of productive capacity,

increasing the size of the treadmill.9

Even more questionable are the underlying assumptions of those who seek to stop

environmental degradation by appealing not to individuals in general but to the ethics of

individuals at the top of the social pyramid and to corporations. Thus in his widely

heralded book, The Ecology of Commerce, Paul Hawken argues for a new environmental

ethic for businesspeople and corporations. After advocating an ambitious program for

ecological change, Hawken states, "Nothing written, suggested, or proposed is possible

unless business is willing to embrace the world we live within and lead the way."

According Hawken,

the ultimate purpose of business is not, or should not be, simply to make

money. Nor is it merely a system of making and selling things. The

promise of business is to increase the general well-being of humankind

through service, a creative invention and ethical philosophy.

Thus he goes on to observe that,

If Dupont, Monsanto, and Dow believe they are in the synthetic chemical

production business, and cannot change this belief, they and we are in

trouble. If they believe they are in business to serve people, to help solve

problems, to use and employ the ingenuity of workers to improve the lives

of people around them by learning from the nature that gives us life, we

have a chance.10

The central message here is that businesspeople merely have to change the ethical

bases of their conduct and all will be well with the environment. Such views

underestimate the extent to which the treadmill of production and the higher immorality

are built into our society. Ironically, Hawken's argument places too much responsibility

and blame on the individual corporate manager--since he or she too is likely to be a mere

cog in the wheel of the system. As the great linguistics theorist and media critic Noam

Chomsky has explained,

The Chairman of the board will always tell you that he spends his every

waking hour laboring so that people will get the best possible products at

the cheapest possible price and work in the best possible conditions. But it

is an institutional fact, independent of who the chairman of the board is,

that he'd better be trying to maximize profit and market share, and if he

doesn't do that, he's not going to be chairman of the board any more. If he

were ever to succumb to the delusions that he expresses, he'd be out.11

Foster 6

To be successful within any sphere in this society generally means that one has

thoroughly internalized those values associated with the higher immorality. There is, as

economist John Kenneth Galbraith has pointed out, a "culture of contentment" at the top

of the social hierarchy: those who benefit most from the existing order have the least

desire for change.12

Resistance to the treadmill of production therefore has to come mainly from the lower

echelons of society, and from social movements rather than individuals. This can only

occur, to quote German Green Party leader Petra Kelly, if ecological concerns are "tied to

issues of economic justice--exploitation of the poor by the rich." Behind every

environmental struggle of today there is a struggle over the expansion of the global

treadmill--a case of landless workers or villagers who are compelled to destroy nature in

order to survive, or large corporations that seek to expand profits with little concern for

the natural social devastation that they leave in their wake. Ecological development is

possible, but only if the economic as well as environmental injustices associated with the

treadmill are addressed. An ecological approach to the economy is about having enough,

not having more. It must have as its first priority people, particularly poor people, rather

than production or even the environment, stressing the importance of meeting basic needs

and long-term security. This is the common morality with which we must combat the

higher immorality of the treadmill. Above all we must recognize the old truth, long

understood by the romantic and socialist critics of capitalism, that increasing production

does not eliminate poverty.13

Indeed, the global treadmill is so designed that the poor countries of the world often

help finance the rich ones. During the period from 1982 to 1990, the Third World was a

"net exporter of hard currency to the developed countries, on average $30 billion per

year." In this same period third World debtors remitted to their creditors in the wealthy

nations an average of almost $12.5 billion per month in payments on debt alone. this is

equal to what the entire Third world spends each month on health and education. It is this

system of global inequity that reinforces both overpopulation (since poverty spurs

population growth) and the kind of rapacious development associated with the

destruction of tropical rain forests in the Third World.14

* * *

For those of you with a pragmatic bent, much of what I have said here may seem too

global and too abstract. the essential point that I want to leave you with, however, is the

notion that although we are all on the treadmill, we do not all relate to it in the same way

and with the same degree of commitment. I have found in my research into the ancient

forest struggle in the Northwest--and others have discovered the same thing in other

settings--that ordinary workers have strong environmental values even though they may

be at loggerheads with the environmental movement. In essence they are fighting for their

lives and livelihoods at a fairly basic level.15

We must find a way of putting people first in order to protect the environment. There

are many ways of reducing the economic stakes in environmental destruction on the part

Foster 7

of those who have little direct stake in the treadmill itself. But this means taking seriously

issues of social and economic inequality as well as environmental destruction. Only by

committing itself to what is now called "environmental justice" (combining

environmental concerns and social justice) can the environmental movement avoid being

cut off from those classes of individuals who are most resistant to the treadmill on social

grounds. the alternative is to promote an environmental movement that is very success ful

in creating parks with Keep Out! signs, and yet which is complicit with the larger

treadmill of production. By recognizing that it is not people (as individuals and in

aggregate) that are enemies of the environment but the historically specific economic and

social order in which we live, we can, I believe, find sufficient common ground for a true

moral revolution to save the earth.

Notes

1 James Gustave Speth, "Can the World Be Saved?," in Anthony B. Wolbarst,

Environment in Peril (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), pp. 64-65.

2 Leopold, The Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), p.

viii.

3 The concept of the "treadmill of production" is taken from Allan Schnaiberg, The

Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp.

205-50, and Schnaiberg and Kenneth Allan Gould, Environment and Society (New York:

St. Martin's Press, 1949), p. viii. In Schnaiberg's earlier work the treadmill is situated in

the historical context of monopoly capitalism as described in Paul Baran and Paul

Sweezy's Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966) and James

O'Connor's, Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973). It should be

noted that the third element of the treadmill listed in the text above--the revolutionization

of the means of production on pain of extinction--is attenuated in certain ways under

monopoly capitalism, but still remains a general tendency of the system.

4 Schopenhauer quoted in Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Dell, 1964),

p. 20.

5 Chandler Morse, "Environment, Economics and Socialism," Monthly Review 30, no. 11

(April 1979): 12-15; Petra K. Kelly, Thinking Green! (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1994),

pp. 22-23. The tendency of the system to draw upon ever larger throughputs of raw

materials and energy was countered somewhat by increasing energy efficiency (measured

by the ratio of GDP to commercial fuels consumed) in the advanced capitalist countries

in the 1970s and early 1980s. Since the mid-1980s, however, progress in this respect has

slowed as a result of falling energy prices. In the United States, which uses about as much

energy as the entire Third World, energy efficiency has remained essentially unchanged

Foster 8

since 1986. See Lester Brown et al., Vital Signs 1992 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992),

pp. 54-55, and Vital signs 1994, pp. 126-27.

6 Speth, "Can the World Be Saved?," p. 65.

7 Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 338-61.

8 Kevin J. Clancy and Robert S. Shulman, Across the Board, October 1993, p. 38; The

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993 (Lanham, MD: Bernan Press, 1993), p.

147; "The Money Society," Fortune, 6 July 1987, 26-31; Bahro, Socialism and Survival

(London: Heretic Books, 1982), p. 31; Carson, "Silent Spring--III," The New Yorker, 38,

no. 19 (June 30, 1962): 67.

9 Durning, How Much Is Enough? (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992), pp. 136-37; Jerry

Mander, In the Absence of the Sacred (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1991), pp. 78-

79.

10 Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 1-2.

11 Chomsky interview, Bill Moyers, ed., A World of Ideas (New York: Doubleday,

1989), p. 42.

12 Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

13 Kelly, Thinking Green!, p. 25; Ben Jackson, Poverty and the Planet (Harmondsworth:

Penguin, 1990), pp. 182-83; Raymond Williams, Resources of Hope (London: Verso,

1989), p. 221.

14 Quotation from Cheryl Payer, Lent and Lost (London: Zed Books, 1991), p. 115; also

Susan George, "The Debt Boomerang," in Kevin Danaher, ed. Fifty Years Is Enough

(Boston: South End Press, 1994), p. 29.

15 Foster, "The Limits of Environmentalism Without Class," Capitalism, Nature,

Socialism, 4, no. 1 (March 1993): 11-41; Thomas Dunk, "Talking About Trees:

Environment and Society in Forest Workers' Culture," The Canadian Review of

Sociology and Anthropology, 31, no. 1 (February 1994): 14-34.