There are two
definitions of the word “materialism.” One refers to a lifestyle
emphasis, and the other refers to a philosophical position.
Materialism as a lifestyle emphasis means centering your life around
the acquisition and enjoyment of material things. A person pursuing
a materialistic lifestyle may organize his life around getting a
bigger house, getting a bigger or faster car, buying fancy clothes
and gadgets, and so forth.
A person's carbon
footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted as the result of a
person's consumption activities. Assuming that what we are told is
correct (that increased carbon footprints tend to increase
global warming), it is rather clear that lifestyle materialism tends
to increase global warming. If a person thinks that “happily ever
after” means a 2000-square-foot home and two big gas-guzzling cars,
along with frequent trips to luxury hotels in distant cities, he may
well have a carbon footprint much greater than if he put little value
on such things.
Philosophical
materialism is something quite different from lifestyle materialism.
Philosophical materialism is the position that matter (or
mass-energy) is all that exists (with the possible exception of blind
impersonal forces such as gravitation, or laws of nature). Not
believing in any type of deity, spirits or souls, a philosophical materialist
thinks that this earthly life is the only life a human will ever
have, and that no one will have an afterlife.
You might think that
whether a person is a philosophical materialist has no relevance to
global warming. But this may not be true. There is a reason for
thinking that philosophical materialists may be more likely to have
higher carbon footprints, and do more of the activities that increase
global warming. The reason has nothing to do with the philosophical
materialist's lack of belief in a deity. The reason has to do with
the philosophical materialist's lack of belief in an afterlife.
Let us imagine two
people, one named Joe and another named Jane. Joe is a hard-boiled
philosophical materialist. He believes that this earthly life is the
only life he will ever live. But Jane believes rather vaguely in some
type of afterlife. She thinks that when she dies she may continue
to live on in some type of heaven. She also thinks that perhaps she
will be reincarnated, and come back to our planet to live another
life.
Joe's attitude is
summarized by slogans such as “you only live once.” Believing
that he will have no afterlife, Joe thinks that this earthly life is
his only chance to see the world's wonders and enjoy various types of
pleasure. So Joe may create in his mind a “bucket list”
consisting of a list of items he wants to do before he “kicks the
bucket.” These may be items like this:
- See the view from the Eiffel Tower.
- Walk on the Great Wall of China
- Take a glass-bottom boat tour in the Great Barrier Reef
- Climb to the top of the Uluru rock in Australia
- Swim in some beautiful lagoon in Tahiti
A "bucket list" of places to see before you die
Doing all of these
things and other items on Joe's “bucket list” will add to global
warming. That's because Joe will have to buy lots of jet plane
tickets, and jet planes dump lots of carbon dioxide high into the
atmosphere. But Joe justifies this by saying to himself, “This is
the only chance I'll ever get to see such things.”
Joe may also buy
himself a big home with a high carbon footprint, reasoning, “This
is the only chance I'll ever get to live well.” And he may buy
himself some gas-guzzling car or recreational vehicle, reasoning,
“This is the only chance I'll ever get to drive well,” or “This
is the only chance I'll ever get to see the whole USA.” With such
reasoning, Joe's carbon footprint gets higher and higher.
But now let us
consider Jane. Jane does not assume that her pleasures will be
limited to the pleasures she gets during her earthly life. Jane
thinks she will have some kind of afterlife, and that such an
afterlife may offer unlimited opportunities for different kinds of
pleasure. Thinking that she may find herself in some magnificent
heavenly realm that totally surpasses the splendor of the home of the
richest billionaire, Jane doesn't think along the lines of, “This
is the only chance I'll ever have to live in grand style.” Jane
thinks that perhaps as a disembodied spirit she may be able to move
around to any place on the planet she wants to go, or that perhaps
she will be reincarnated and have additional opportunities for
physical earthly experiences. So she doesn't engage in thinking
along the lines of, “This earthly life is my one chance to see the
Great Wall of China.”
When it comes to
eating habits, there may also be a difference between Jane and Joe.
Jane may believe or suspect that all animals have souls, and this may
cause her to limit her meat eating or may cause her to become a
vegetarian. Jane may reason that raising pigs and cows for food may
cause suffering for animals with souls, and that we should therefore
not eat such animals. But not believing in any types of souls, Joe
may eat lots of meat. In fact, when he comes to a restaurant, Joe's
attitude of “this life is my only chance for pleasure” may cause
him to try some meat dish he has never tried before. This is
relevant to global warming, because the raising of animals for meat
is one of the biggest contributors to global warming.
Now, who is more
likely to have a higher carbon footprint, Jane or Joe? It seems that
Joe will be much more likely to have a higher carbon footprint.
Joe's thinking may well lead him to engage in activities that
increase global warming. But Jane's thinking may make her less likely
to engage in a high-carbon-footprint lifestyle.
It is certainly true
that we can imagine a rather austere philosophical materialist whose
carbon footprint is low. The main driver of a high-carbon lifestyle
is not any philosophical position but a consumerist culture which is
constantly sending us silly messages implying that your success in
life is proportional to the size of your house, the size or cost of
your car, and the distance you travel in jet planes. But by
encouraging the thinking that this earthly life is our only chance
for satisfaction, philosophical materialism does nothing to put a
check on such a consumerist culture. So compared to rival
assumptions, philosophical materialism does a bad job at discouraging
the high consumption that worsens global warming. Although
philosophical materialism does not necessitate lifestyle materialism,
philosophical materialism may tend to encourage lifestyle
materialism, which tends to increase global warming.
The armchair
considerations here don't prove anything, but a systematic scientific
study could shed further light on such a topic. I suggest this as a topic for a scientific researcher looking for a topic for a scientific paper. I
can imagine such a study being done at low cost. You simply submit
question lists to a wide variety of age groups and income levels,
asking people both about their philosophical and religious beliefs
and also about their consumption practices and carbon footprints. Then you look to see
whether there is any correlation between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment