Copyright Notice

Individual articles on this website are copyrighted. Articles may be downloaded for personal use; users are forbidden to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or resell any materials from this website in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission of the author and NHLA or payment of the appropriate royalty for reuse. For permissions and other copyright-related questions, please email your question to: editor [at] nhlaonline.org.

Dr. Dirt
April 2010

The Myth of Progress

-Is more of everything better, or is more better really worser and worser?-

Tom Wessels* is a New England original. He has walked the woods of our bioregion from childhood, observing closely his natural surroundings, and watching with some dismay the effects of human population over the past fifty years. At New England Grows in February, he spoke on "The Scientific Underpinnings of Sustainability." It wasn't exactly anything new, but it was a new way of putting it all together in an understandable and convincing package.

The new package was not very pretty. To sum up: based on global science** and based on simple human perception of the neighborhood***, it's all going to hell in a handbasket. But there are some actions we can take to help ourselves and the planet reverse course.

His talk was a condensed version of his fairly recent book, The Myth of Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future (Univ Press of New England: Hanover, 2006). Never one to pass up bad news, I bought a copy of the book and have been chewing on it for the past month. I can't say as I have it thoroughly digested, but - as the faithful reader knows - I am more than willing to spew it all out here, raw and undigested. Consumer discretion is advised.

Wessels' book is composed of five discussions of what he labels "human myths": myths of control, of growth, of energy, of the free market, and, summarizing, the myth of progress.

His myth of control has to do with our human tendency to view natural systems as linear and therefore easily controllable: If the room is too hot, we simply turn the thermostat down. But in reality, at both local and global scales, the systems are far too complex and interdependent to be controllable. Whether the system is the water cycle, or sea currents, or precipitation in New England, or spring snow melt in New Hampshire, or runoff from a parking lot, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. An analogy here is the oft-cited butterfly wing-flap in Mongolia that leads to a hurricane in the Caribbean. There is also a long and disturbing list of species of all kingdoms which we have introduced to ecosystems around the world, leading to widespread system degradation. Control of such complex systems is beyond the capabilities of both humans and their computers. The unintended consequence is the rule.

Wessels' myth of growth refers to our common human belief that growth in systems is desired - growth in lumber milled, fish processed, corn harvested, cars per family, house sizes, oil pumped from the ground, water use, general consumer goods, money, GDP, etc.: There's nothing on earth that wouldn't improve if there was more of it, and this is not only desirable and possible, but is our human destiny. The truth is that all growth is ultimately limited by conditions and processes both internal and external to the system. An organism's body grows only so large (or, sometimes, a bit larger), based on genetic instructions and environmental conditions. A population can grow only so large, and then further growth is inhibited by an unavailable resource, or competition, or disease. An ecosystem can change in composition and biomass over time, but species biological potential, available resources and space, disturbance, climate, etc, will dampen unlimited growth. This also holds true for such human constructs as the financial system, the market system, the manufacturing system, etc.

We know that as human population has grown geometrically, and as human impact has grown exponentially with our clever technologies, the environment has footed most of the bill: human population growth and the growing ease of our daily lives have been made possible by the extraction of resources - many non-renewable - at an unsustainable rate. Put simply, there is only so much stuff (water, soil, oil, etc.).

Further, much of our production creates toxic by-products which are building up in soil, air and water. In the near future (and in many parts of the world for years already), our access will be compromised to potable water, arable land, food, and to such "extras" as heat, electricity, and the myriad consumer products we enjoy today.

Wessels' myth of energy is based in (look out) the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is not a theory, it is fact: energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one state to another: the sun's energy goes into producing sugars in plants, the sugars are used to make wood, we burn the wood, the house heats up, and then the heat disperses into the environment. The catch is that at each switch, energy is lost; when energy is lost, the system degrades, becomes disorganized, simplifies, and materials diffuse. For the last 250 million years, the earth's energy loss has been balanced by energy replacement, for a fairly stable system in relative equilibrium. However, for the past 150 years or so, energy loss (primarily through burning of fossil fuels) has far outweighed energy replacement. Energy consumption cannot be sustained as the supply is finite. This is a system out of balance. The system is tending toward disorganization and simplification as energy and materials are diffused.
The myth of the free-market refers to the unsustainable concept that simple systems of production based on maximizing, for example, cereal grain yield, will lead to ever-increasing output, and that larger farms will produce more, and more efficiently. This myth ignores, in the case of cereal grain, the inherent lack of resilience in simplified and monocultured agricultural systems applied over large areas. Heavy inputs of energy, labor, fertilizers, pesticides, etc, are required to maintain this fragile system. Again, the system is limited.

Older natural ecosystems with high levels of biological diversity and multilevel species interactions tend to be more resistant to disturbance. Efficient counterbalance, feedback and resilience result in greater system stability. But when this system is altered on a large scale by significant disturbance (paving, development, invasive species takeover, monoculturing, etc), and the system is radically simplified, the system becomes more fragile, less resilient, and less sustainable.

Wessels' free-market myth also refers to the rise of corporate power, the increasingly narrow accumulation of wealth, the globalization of finance and production - all focused on financial wealth and corporate health, with little attention to human and ecosystem health.

Wessels closes his book with a discussion of what he might call true human health and wealth. This is not about more money, a bigger house, and more stuff. It is about physical and emotional health, feeling a strong sense of place, community participation, and fostering ecosystem health. In an epilogue, Wessels suggests we all re-read Black Elk Speaks by John G. Neihardt, a classic vision of living with the earth. If you haven't read it, go to your local library, or download from Amazon. It is eye-opening and mind-bending.

At 131 pages, The Myth of Progress is neither extensive nor exhaustive, but that can be a virtue. Wessels is an ecologist and a naturalist par excellence, but is less comfortable and somewhat less convincing with the psychological, sociological and economic dimensions. But with an open-and-shut case, the verdict is clear: we are a part of and wholly dependent on the natural world; our effects are now global and are growing; we need to make changes soon in our value system and our approach to the world that supports us…..or those supports will be removed.

*Tom Wessels is professor of ecology and founding director of the master's program in conservation biology at the Antioch New England Graduate School. He is the author of Reading the Forested Landscape: A Natural History of New England (1997), and The Granite Landscape: A Natural History of America's Mountain Domes from Acadia to Yosemite (2001).

**That is, based on scientific methods, precise observations and measurements, reproducible experiments, long-term studies (including ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years) - in other words, based on (as close as we can get to them) facts…and not internet and talk-show riot-rousing babble…

***That is, "Doh!"…which may be very accurate, but is also highly individual and anecdotal…except when studied scientifically, using scientific methods, etc.