Dr. Glen Barry Bio
Dr. Glen Barry is the President and Founder of Ecological Internet (EI). He is a conservation biologist and political ecologist, a writer of essays and blogs, and a computer specialist and technology researcher. Dr Barry's tireless use of the Internet to address global ecological change has been described as providing "the global ecological conscience" necessary to pursue and achieve global ecological sustainability.
Ecological Internet specializes in the construction of environmental portals with unique information retrieval tools and original analysis. EI's web sites (Climate Ark, Forests.org, EcoEarth.Info, Water Conserve, Ocean Conserve and Rainforest Portal) are widely recognized as premier environmental news, information and analysis web sites, and enjoy some 30,000 users a day from around the world. As the leader of EI, Dr. Barry carries out a range of duties requiring disparate proficiencies including ecological research, campaign strategizing, computer programming and NGO management.
Dr. Barry holds a Ph.D. in "Land Resources" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a Masters of Science in "Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development" also from Madison, and a Bachelor of Arts in "Political Science" from Marquette University. His research has been into use of the Internet to facilitate conservation outcomes, where his scholarly insights have been repeatedly tested through years of observation of actual Internet campaigns on behalf of the Earth. He is deeply committed to environmental sustainability, and his rainforest conservation and Internet campaigning have been supported by the MacArthur Foundation, Threshold Foundation and many others. He has worked within academia, multi-lateral organizations and non-governmental organizations.
Dr. Barry is married, with two well trained golden retrievers. He resides in the rural midwest where he practices green living. He enjoys walking, reading, tree planting, gardening, traveling and movies. Perhaps nothing brings him more satisfaction than waxing philosophically on environmental sustainability and related issues on his Earth Meanders personal blog. He frequently speaks publically on environmental issues; having been featured recently in interviews by diverse sources including the LA Times, BBC, Iranian Press TV and many local radio programs.
Economic Collapse and Global Ecology
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life.
With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later.
Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure.
Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products.
Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration.
This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption.
We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.
It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.
Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again.
Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
A successful revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the Earth's industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue, maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more fragile than it looks.
Humanity is a marvelous creation. Yet her current dilemma is unprecedented. It is not yet known whether she is able to adapt, at some expense to her comfort and short-term well-being, to ensure survival. If she can, all futures of economic, social and ecological collapse can be avoided. If not it is better from a long-term biocentric viewpoint that the economic growth machine collapse now, bringing forth the necessary change, and offering hope for a planetary and human revival.
I wish no harm to anyone, and want desperately to avoid these prophesies foretold by ecological science. I speak for the Earth, for despite being the giver of life, her natural voice remains largely unheard over the tumult of the end of being.
Labels: economics, ecosystem collapse, environmental sustainability
25 Comments:
Dick Cheney has been the architect for world devastation for the past seven years; which IS a crime against humanity. If we do not hold accountable those who do the destruction - then, yes, the world IS toast. That's a big lesson everyone needs to learn, imho.
So True Barry.
Did you read Clive Hamilton's book "The Growth Fetish" ?
Andrew
13-1-08
As I have clearly explained in a recent OpEd (Beyond Post-Apocalyptic Eco-Anarchism), I am strongly opposed to Dr. Glen Barry's (and Derrick Jensen's) "hasten the apocalypse" views. I think that they are both sadly mistaken. However, they have a right to be heard so I am re-posting Dr. Barry's recent article (below). Dani
Glen
While I agree that, if economic collapse would bring the earth back to a
sustainable evolution, the sooner the better, before more damage is done, I
think you are very optimistic.
The assumption that humanity could go (back?) to a way of life compatible
with a future for the planet is far from being demonstrated.
Unfortunately, as I believe, humanity may destroy the planet before it
destroys itself. The only real solution is the extinction of humanity. The
sooner the better.
Christian
While going along with your basic evaluation of present ills, I contest your
cure for them.
Sabotaging the present economic system will bring about societal as well as
the economic collapse you predict, preceded by a new "War on Terror", this
time the eco-terrorists.
I wonder if you live close enough to poverty to realize that in times of
need and crisis, the local resources are the first to be plundered. If this
is done on a world scale, good-bye to Nature as well as your "humanity."
Few even now see or respect Nature as a "creation." Mankind will either be
creative in finding manageable long-term solutions in an overall "consensus"
(even a like-it-or-not arrangement) - or it will be each for himself and his
own, with Nature the main victim.
I understand your frustration with the unconsciousness of our time and the
reluctance of people to wake up to the obvious, assume responsibility and
get a hold on life. War wreaks havoc, whatever its "justifications," be it
"the war to end wars", a "war on hunger", terrorism, or you name it. But so
many prefer to fight it out than work it out - it's much easier and even
serves our self-esteem.
I look forward to hearing your more creative suggestions.
John Byrde
Glen,
I am ever amazed at your insightful writing!
I beleive the future is already in the cards so to speak, by the climate forcing already in the system. We've passed the threshold and point of no return. Our words now are just voice in the wind of an inevitable storm that is gathering strength. With the tipping point passed, and positive climate forcing feedbacks already initiated, we can only stand back and watch, and can do nothing more to help or hinder the process than an ant can do to stop an earthquake. We've used our technological leverage to tip the huge bolder of major climate change over the edge, and now that it's rolling down the hill, we haven't a way to stop it.
The bottom line...such discussions are merely philosophical in nature, as the die has been cast.
Now, we shall see if in the process, nature has a way for species such as ours to have their social fabric and civilzation ripped apart and still survive.
I remain optimistic. Humans are an incredibly adaptable animal, and we may very well be live like Lovelace suggested in the "Revenge of Gaia"...as a minor species clinging as a tribal culture to the edges of the artic in a much warmer future. It would be kind of Gaia to allow it...
I so agree with you and I seriously believe too that anything done currently to stop the destruction is so inadequate that I want to cry. There is a need for a true revolution of consciousnesses but, somehow, I am a doubter and don't think it's going to happen unless there is worst destruction coming soon.
Hi Glen: Thanks for your article.
If one thinks for the earth one can see virtue in a beginning of collapse -
it might awaken us to action, or in total collapse - it might leave some
resource left for Gaia to regulate and re-blossom. However, at least from
the human perspective, I'm afraid the problem is too complete for anything
but a true awakening of the spirit where the other is considered equal to
ourselves and voluntary restraint of self and generosity to other is learned
and practiced. It will need every bit of resource humanity has to
restructure our energy and materials processing systems. In a collapse, the
most likely scenario is a large fraction of humanity will be eradicated
through famine and war. Some of undeveloped humanity may survive, and some
developed elite may survive. But if the spiritual lesson is not learned and
fully integrated then the lesson will likely be lost or improperly
implemented (for example in a reactionary and dogmatic way), populations
will grow again, and one elite or another will re-dominate the earth. In a
complete collapse, which is the most likely outcome if a limited "civilized"
elite does not survive to anchor gained knowledge, civilization in the form
we know it is unlikely to re-emerge. It depended on very fortuitous
circumstances including several millennia of benign climate, and
concentrated deposits of minerals and fossil fuels that have now been
dissipated. These deposits will take 100's millions years to reform, if
ever, by which time continued solar forcing (a warming sun) may prevent any
chance for a suitable climate regime for any then potential species to
re-evolve technological civilization.
However, there may well be merit in sabotage of further extension of the
present system. This is the process of saying NO to any extension, and
eventually continuation, of the clearly harmful habits, ideally in a strong
but non- violent way. This would be best in a world, where at the same
time there was a lot of study of and YES to the practices that are most
likely to be sustainable.
One problem is that we live in an unscientific world (beyond a subset of the
professional science community) so very few people know how to discriminate
from our politicians mouths what might be sustainable practice and
understand the need to be constantly vigilant to the need to change as we
learn. Another way of stating the problem with collapse is that what
little scientific understanding exists in our society at large, as well as
practical spiritual value, is likely to diminish as people regress to
survival. What we most desperately need immediately is a scientific
spirituality - consideration for the other grounded in scientific wisdom.
I think there is a good chance that as much as the way out of this is for
humanity to extend its identification with other humanity and all creation
(become less human centered), it is actually a human centered drama and
opportunity. The rest of nature will continue its experiment on earth or
elsewhere. Humans, the human species and human consciousness, have a
watershed opportunity to learn. We may never again have such a powerful
projection and reflection of our psychoses, along with the potency to choose
to do something. Are we too adolescent, or too tired and depressed?
Keep up the good work,
Paul
Hi Glen,
Dan Rubin, the foolish, patronizing self-appointed Executive Director of the formerly useful, now tottaly derelict and defunkt BC Environmental Network (BCEN) has written this silly criticism of your efforts. As your articles are regularly posted to the 'landwatch' listserv., where many BC environmentalists communicate, so perhaps you might care to respond to his screed. If you've got the stomach and the time, you can read his article here:
"Beyond Post-Apocalyptic Eco-Anarchism"
http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7133&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Our Bear Mountain treesit, which we established back in April /07 to block a giant cloverleaf interchange is getting huge mileage these days.
Cheers, Ingmar
Again well written Glenn.
A couple quotes I thought you'd appreciate:
"In a world that has begun to believe that financial profit is the only religion, sometimes not wanting money is more frightening to capitalist society than acts of terrorism."
Arundhati Ray
The conspicuous spending of the "winners" during the 1990's was not reducible to greed or spiritual malaise. It was an intelligible, even biologically induced competition for rank. In a society that had sacrificed the rituals of social stability for the commodities of personal mobility, it made sense for the individual to compete through goods.
Robert Frank
Best regards,
barry
Don't worry!
Nature ALWAYS wins and when we humans have been wiped out by our own folly we will be replaced by something more suitable for this beautiful planet.
Richard Avon
Dear Glen,
Very good essay - well said!
Eric.
Doc, you are right on with this. I must ask if you think it is possible to do an end around on the whole society, much like the Amish and Mennonites do? The science is here for sustainability and energy neutral environments, using almost totally recycled or low embedded energy materials to create. My problem is how much of the modern world will we be able to take with us? The computer industry and the Internet that we live by are pretty large pollutersand users of resources-is there some way to take that with us? All my answers to these questions leave me closer to an Amish life style
Sincerely,
Tim Hayes
Sir,are you serious? You are deceived. What are you after? Money? Shame on you!
Dear Glen,
One reason for the greed is that these people know
about the collapse and are trying to ensure that
they will not suffer when it happens. Policy of I'm allright Jack.
Aubrey
This point of view is hardly "bio-centric." It's just another version of an anthropocentric vision of earth -- that is a cry to preserve the earth as a suitable environment for humans and the particular set of plant and animal species that support our existence. The earth, and LIFE on earth, existed for billions of years before humans, and will continue to exist for billions of years after humans (baring the sun going supernova). Great extinctions have occurred over and over again in the course of the earth's history. The only reason to get emotional about THIS great extinction is because it threatens humanity. Now I happend to be quite concerned about humanity, and therefore don't want to see this great extinction continue. But to call concerns about global warming, and environmental destruction "bio-centric" is bogus. It is the height of anthropocentricism.
Sue,
I get your point, but there is a fundamental disagreement here. Just because mass extinctions have been followed by recovery does not mean it is necessarily so. Extinction is not directed. The toxic deadly mess humanity is causing may well lead to a loss of all complex life or even the death of all organic life. Give us a couple more decades of wanton ecosystem liquidation and this is probable. An economic crash now would be better for elephants and tigers, unknown plants and bacteria, as well as humans.
Keep it up! You and those like you (I fervently hope they are many) are the heroes of the hour. May your voices be heard! every body on this planet should be obliged to read your true words. I am spreading my little net as far as I can.
Very best wishes
Teresa
I don't want to seem pessimistic, but the UK government has just given the go-ahead for a new batch of nuclear power stations. Assuming everything goes a bit self-sufficient and 'primitive' for a few hundred years, until the climate stabilises, who will look after the de-commissioning of these stations?
Interesting view. Can't say I disagree. Unfortunately when the economy collapses, while it may be good for the environment, I am afraid it will divert attention from the necessity to curtail emissions. Of course another scenario (depending on how the collapse comes about) is that it may reinforce the unpleasant reality that this world has finite resources. We are entering a period of volatile grain commodity prices brought about by drought and bio fuels. When we have a serious drought in the Midwest (this summer?) which send corn prices to $8-10/ bushel and people starve in developing nations we might wake up to the fact that the choices made in developed nations (primarily the US)have serious global repurcussions. Hopefully, this awareness carries over to global ecology and set the roots for real change. Unfortunately as Dr. Barry notes this is not going to be a smooth or peaceful transition...
Dear Glen,
your heart's cry and your frustration is apparent in "Earth Meanders'. When you say
With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the
United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that
policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability
will be embraced.
You say it well (sort of) - a downturn (which has been happening
economically since 1970) does make ecological goals seemingly less
attainable. How much more so a "collapse".
History tells us that those who have "lived most lightly" on the
Earth have not (like the indigenous peoples)come out on top.
Perhaps ultimately after what seems to be an inevitable collapse
some of those who have been in harmony with Mother Earth will
manage an existence of some kind.
I doubt that even from the Earth's point of view that outcome
is desirable. Nitwit Christians have their rapture to fall back
on - honest people must not indulge in such fantasies.
Sometimes we just don't fucking know the answer and no matter
how uncomfortable that place may be we may just have to stay
there until (maybe) we see.
Glen, we share your travail.
Karen and Jeff Hay
You do speak for Earth, thank you so much, Annemarie
God told us to be fruitful and multiply - I'm glad HE's got it under control.
Dr. Barry -- that was a terrifically thoughtful piece you published the other day
on economic collapse and global ecology.
I just wanted to dash off a note to thank you so much for putting it together.
And also to call your attention to a piece I did -- not very dissimilar -- which ran last
month in Grist and on the Common Dreams site as well.
It's posted at:
(Grist http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/10/165845/92
and
Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/11/5773/ )
It seems clear that nature is bring many of us -- who started from very different orientations,
toward a sort of common convergence.
Anyway, just wanted to thank you. And if you've got any particular reaction to the
not-long piece I published last month, I'd love to hear it.
Keep up the fine work
Yours,
Ross Gelbspan
Dear Glen Barry:
Your most recent essay “Economic collapse and global ecology“ has just came to my attention and I am most impressed with it; I agree with your argument and, of course, your great concern is shared.
I just put out a book that may interest you. If you read it, I would greatly appreciate your assessment of whether it works /is accessible, etc.
************************************************
A new 482-page book, just released, is entitled "Sustaining Life on Earth: Environmental and Human Health through Global Governance". It is now available from the publisher, Lexington Books, http://www.LexingtonBooks.com/ISBN/0739117297. The book is an interdisciplinary collaboration with a broad array of disciplines, from law, to health, ecology, biology, economics, social sciences, and ethics, all concerned with the sustainability of living systems. It is anchored in the Earth Charter as _the_ available set of values and principles to which, if we both individually and collectively subscribed would lead us from a path with catastrophic consequences to one of sustainability. The book is designed to save us from ourselves.
I append the PDF flyer for the book, as well as the media release flyer. By clicking on, or pasting the above URL into your browser, you could order the book for $38.21 (soft cover).
Sincerely,
Colin Soskolne
Website: www.ualberta.ca/~soskolne
People won’t care if they think the environment issue does not affect them or their children. We need to make the connection.