The Green Myth- A myth about the sustainable future

Imagine a world that met all the needs of its people — one in where everybody lives a healthy, happy and prosperous life. Now imagine that same world could do this while using natural resources sustainably. Such a world does not exist. Contemporary man has exhausted natural resources and polluted the environment beyond repair. Now, we are on the brink of global ecological extinction. There is nothing humanity could do to bring back any means to lose what. Not even by living sustainably could we heal the earth? At most, we can only delay our impending doom. Sustainability and sustainable development are nothing but figments of our imagination, the ‘ignis fatuus’ one sees as they traverse through the forests of conservation. The intrinsic absence of any conservation ethic in humans, our misapprehension of time, and unquestioned belief in “corporate greenwashing” and “green lies” has made sustainable living infeasible. Sustainable living — words thrown around by activists to highlight our ideal utopia — rid of all the problems that we Earthlings tackle today. Gender inequality. Poverty and illiteracy. However, because of, among many things, inconsistencies in its definition, many treats it as an unachievable lifestyle. But what do we mean by sustainable living? The root of this term comes from the word ‘sustainable development’ which itself traced its origin to 1987 when the WCED released its report, the ‘Brundtland Report’, in which the revolutionary definition is given as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 41). Therefore, sustainable living is, the utilization of sustainability to all lifestyle choices and decisions. It is the practice of decreasing your need for resources by ensuring that you utilize the products which are made by using practices that uphold sustainability. Examples of such a lifestyle include, buying products which are labelled as “eco-friendly”, practicing minimalism, to greatly reduce daily plastic consumption, etc. However, the very concept of sustainability requires one to alter their life choices. It requires one to sacrifice individualism and personal ambitions and goals while demanding a lifelong commitment to an alternative lifestyle. For many, this is too high a sacrifice to make. Yet, all strategies which come under the concept of ‘sustainable living’ disregard mankind’s avaricious inclinations. To ignore our innate animalistic behavior and suggest a constructivist and demanding lifestyle is futile because it compromises any prospects for achieving not only the longevity of humanity, but downplays the prospects of sustainability. We must remind ourselves that humans have a reptilian nature because the traits — selfishness, cruelty, greed–were beneficial to man long before any resemblance of modern civilization and was inherited by modern humans. Rees (2010) asserted that the deteriorating global economy and environment despite being attributed to excessive human plundering of earth’s natural resources lend support to the view that humans are predisposed to disregard any forms of sustainable behavior or a lifestyle which promotes sustainability. It is ahistorical to argue against the factors of evolution, which led to these conclusions and pointless to argue that we could lead a lifestyle which went against all of our inherent genetic propensities. LeBlanc and A. Register (2004) mentioned that “Humans are not blessed with a conservation ethic to keep them in ecological balance” (p. 37). Sustainability has ignored doctrines of modern Darwinian evolution; which is most clear in the “competitive drive of individuals to get ahead and protect the lead, conspicuous consumption, and the intractable absence of freedom from want. ” (Pratarelli, M. E. , & Chiarelli, B. , 2007). For the past 100 years, mankind has followed the ways of a growth-oriented economic model which has ransacked the Earth of its natural resources. This has created an incongruity between modern human tendencies and the very environment that it thrives in. Despite humans possessing the capabilities and predilection to increase the carrying capacity of a geographic region, the rising population of the region will consume this increased capacity. This leads to complete changes in the distribution of yield for future generations to avoid an evolutionary decline. People are concerned with their survival and that of their family. We can do nothing but acknowledge that placing our short-term desires and needs instead of focusing on the long-term goals of man puts our children’s environmental futures at risk. The innate inheritance of a reptilian demeanor, coupled with the genetic penchant on humans to not have a conservation ethic, supports the perception that any semblance of sustainable living can’t be achieved. In modern contemporary markets, the rivalry among companies is fiercer than ever, and consumers have been concerned about the environment. Many establishments utilize green products and services as a deceitful way to appeal to customers. As a result, this environment-savvy consumerism and newfound vigilance of consumers designates ethical consumerism as the latest kind of brainwashing called “greenwashing”. Delmas and Burbano (2011) and Berrone (2016), defined greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of organizations (firm-level greenwashing) or the environmental benefits of a product or service (product-level greenwashing)”. They considered it to be a fraudulent way by which companies could employ corrupt conservational practices and unethical undertakings and covering it up with false information about their positive ecological impact. These “green products”, which are labelled as eco-friendly when they are not, have besieged the open market in present society and is a nuisance to the market in many aspects. Firstly, greenwashing helps increase profits both customers and investors are attracted towards products which are labelled as ethical and eco-friendly when they are not (Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2008, p. 20). Today’s anthropocentric society is under the whims of economic growth, consumerism and convenience, rendering any forms of sustainable living unattainable. As mentioned by Solman (2008, p. 24), British Petroleum (BP), has seen its profits rise since it changed its name to Beyond Petroleum which portrays the company as eco-friendly, contrary to its activities. Further, greenwashing can help to improve a company’s reputation in the eyes of all stakeholders in both the public and private sectors (Solman 2008, pp. 22-23). The prevalence of greenwashing and greenwashed products leads to circumstances where individuals cannot make sustainable choices. It becomes taxing for the informed and empowered 21st-century consumer to buy products from “sustainable” companies when the broader economic and bureaucratic system is working in the opposite direction. Buying green products makes customers feel better, but it also deceives them. The perception that individuals can save the environment through the decisions they make at the hypermarket is wrong. As illustrated in the Werner Boote-directed documentary “The Green Lie” based on the book of the same name by Kathrin Hartmann, there are no “green” cars and no “sustainable” palm oil. Buyers are now bombarded with a disorienting array of symbols on the products they buy: organic, eco-friendly, etc. However, Hartmann argues that these are “green lies”; everyone is monitoring their consumption patterns and neglecting to demand genuine change in the things that matter. Likewise, greenwashing will further backfire on the organization and the ideals which they exemplify as shown by Nyilasy et al. (2014). This will lead to individuals to be in a state of perpetual helplessness, where neither can they buy products which are ‘eco-friendly and sustainable’ nor can they be in ease at their actions as it’s impossible to reject excessive consumption for it has invaded every aspect of our lives. Therefore, the buyer has to relent on making sustainable choices in the desperate vulnerability of causing the same damage to the environment without making any significant change. This paradox of products and corporate disinformation is a vital part of why sustainable choices could not exist. As mentioned, the road to sustainable living requires a concomitant change in the network of all stakeholders in all sectors of life. However, this is infeasible because of, both, the central human nature and external bureaucracy which play against sustainability. But, we must also conclude that our perception of time is another reason sustainable living can’t be realized. Although many political agreements and accords have been signed with great zeal, no political action has been taken and is often misdirected towards redundant issues (Blair, 2011). Evidently, this can be attributed to the limitation of the human perception of time. ‘Do it right now and never again’ is how humans respond to long-term goals. Our perception of time is time-linear limited. We are exceptional at making excellent and grounded predictions of our future environment only over a brief period. Humans, by nature, have a brief attention span. Humans are adept at planning, but, terrible at maintaining them. Politicians can lay the foundations of a ‘5 year plan’ but, beyond a year, a sizeable amount of people in society do not consider to continue with it or uphold its policies. It is difficult for the common man to juggle both a demanding, long-term lifestyle and short-term decisions and ambitions at the same time. Yet, as Dobzhansky (1958) and Potter (1971, 1995) have stated, our long term goals must be applied and understood in geologic time, not mere human years. Sustainability will change. As society grows, so does its problems. Hence, it is naïve to consider today’s ‘sustainable living’, an already disastrous regiment, to be the same within the next decade. It is impossible for society to change its way of life to match with the status quo put forth by activists and sustainable organizations. Further, as Lew (2010) stated, “The reason for our lack of confidence in our planning time horizons is because we know that things change over time, and they change in a nonlinear (i. e. unpredictable) manner. The current predicament of sustainability always entails strategies which are always meant for long term development, yet the endeavors done by society are produce and are meant for short term benefits. Unfortunately, long-term goals for such an issue are also the most difficult to propose and enforce, because, as stated above, the issue will develop and the limited human understanding of time regarding sustainability, makes any semblance of actions towards an ideal world impossible. There is no consideration of the consequences caused by unknowable catastrophic events that may occur. Thus, it is naïve to suggest that this ‘sustainable life’ could be sustained within the next few years. In conclusion, widespread achievement of ‘sustainable living’ could push society beyond all its capabilities and affinities. Humanity has reached a stalemate. However, this should not infer that Homo sapiens have no other option. Although ecological doom is imminent, that does not mean that sword of Damocles has fallen. Humanity has a tremendous capability to delay any danger by any means. Unlike what many activists and politicians may preach, living sustainably will not be the key to save the planet from its doom. The mere absence of any preservation in our genes and the rising distrust towards those in power has proven that such a lifestyle is nothing but a ‘green myth’.