Resources and Anthropocentrism

Draft script:

I recently pointed out that few people are capable of recognizing the links between the past and the present. In addition, the vast majority of people are unaware of our collective actions and outcomes. I constantly hear and read that we amazing humans can solve any problem we encounter. Not only that, but everything can be reduced to a problem. Predicaments are for other people, at other times in history.

As I indicated previously, the word resources is problematic because it implies materials are placed on this planet for the use of humans. We see finite substances and the living planet as materials to be exploited for our comfort. Examples of intense anthropocentrism are so numerous in the English language it seems unfair to pick on this one word from among many. And, as with most other cases, we don’t even think about these examples, much less question them (consider, for example, sustainability, civilization, and economic growth). My only justifications for singling out resources are the preponderance with which the word appears in contemporary media, the uncritical acceptance of resources as divine gifts for Homo sapiens, and my previous attempts to address a few other obvious examples.

My analysis begins with definitions, straight from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Resource: 1 a: a source of supply or support : an available means – usually used in plural, b: a natural source of wealth or revenue – often used in plural, c: a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life, d: computable wealth – usually used in plural, and e: a source of information or expertise.

All these definitions imply an anthropogenic basis for resources, and c is particularly transparent on this point: “a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life.” Digging a little further, the etymology of resource brings us directly to lifelong bedfellows anthropocentrism and Christianity. Resource is derived from the Old French resourdre (which means, literally, to rise again). Resourdre has its roots in the Latin resurgere (which means to rise from the dead; also see resurrection).

From this etymology, it’s a simple step back in time to Aristotle’s final cause, which followed his material cause, efficient cause, and formal cause. Aristotle posited that, ultimately, events occurred to serve life, particularly the life of humans. This anthropocentric take on causality grew directly from the philosophy of Aristotle’s teacher Plato, who focused his philosophy on separating humans from nature while popularizing the feel-good notion that humans have immortal souls. The idea that humans have souls, which was subsequently discredited by the western science that grew from humble Grecian roots, became the basis for Christianity, one of three Abrahamic religions that developed in the Mediterranean a few centuries after Plato learned from Socrates and then taught Aristotle.

Considering the history of western thought, it’s no surprise that we view every element on Earth as feedstock for industrialization. The only question is when we exploit Earth’s bounty, not if. The logical progression, then, is to exploitation of humans to further feed the industrial machine.

Within the last several years, personnel departments at major institutions became departments of human resources. Thus, whereas these departments formerly dealt with persons, they now deal with resources. There’s a reason you feel like a cog in a grand imperial scheme: Not only are you viewed as a cog by the machine, and also by those who run the machine, but any non-cog-like behavior on your part leads to rejection of you and your actions. Seems you’re either a tool of empire or you’re a saboteur (that is, a terrorist).

Perhaps it’s time to invest in wooden shoes.

But, wait. It’s not as if fifteen people are even willing to poke a stick in the eye of the corporations that run and ruin our lives. Why is that? Probably because we think we depend upon the corporations, when in fact they depend upon us. And, to a certain extent—to the extent we allow—we do depend upon industrial culture for our lives. But only in the short term, and only as self-absorbed, comfortable individuals unwilling to make changes in our lives (even those changes that are necessary to our own survival). Taking the longer, broader view, it is evident industrial culture is killing the living planet, and our own species. The cultural problem we face is not that we’re fish out of water. Rather, it’s that we’re fish in a river. We don’t even know there’s an ocean, much less terrestrial surfaces.

Aye, there’s the rub. Evolution demands short-term thinking focused on individual survival. Most attempts to overcome our evolutionarily hardwired absorption with self are selected against. Nietzsche’s Overman is dead, killed by a high-fat diet and unwillingness to exercise. Reflexively, we follow him into the grave, with no opportunity for resurrection.