Why Al Gore is not a nutcase

Not very long ago Al Gore challenged the United States ‘to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.’ Gore’s attempts to convince the American people that change can and must occur have been aggressively mocked by political opponents, and his ambitious challenge is generally dismissed as inconceivable even by those who are sympathetic to the cause. But there is a lot more substance to his sometimes emotional or patronizing pleas for humanity to deal with the existential crisis of climate change than many prominent figures realize or would like to acknowledge publicly.

There is no denying that Gore’s expectations are high. The breadth and depth of institutional and individual change required to avert ecological disaster is staggering; he is suggesting that the notoriously distractible, apathetic and oftentimes uninformed (one could also argue misinformed) citizens of the US come together in some sort of unprecedented, concerted effort to ensure the livelihood of not only people they may never know in their lifetimes, but also members of completely separate species. Admittedly, he is asking a lot.

One reason to heed Gore’s (sometimes tedious) calls for action stems from the nature of the crisis itself. It would be wrong to judge the necessity for change based on the feasibility of it occurring. Just because to downplay the potential devastation of climate change – and our ability to counteract it – would make us all feel less guilty for failing to adjust our way of life does not, unfortunately, change the fact that the straits are bona fide DIRE. More and more prominent scientists are now publicly expressing concern and stressing the need for immediate and dramatic action. James McCarthy, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently stated that the opportunity to prevent irrevocable damage to the environment is only within the next four years. At this point it seems safe to conclude there is no question as to the severity and urgency of the problem; unless radical measures are taken to combat current trends, there will be grave consequences for ourselves and the rest of the biological world.

This brings us to the issue of feasibility. Gore optimistically envisions a nation of socially, economically, geographically and politically disparate inhabitants working together towards a goal that will involve considerable lifestyle modification and potentially a fair amount of self-sacrifice. Even to those less inclined to cynicism this scenario would appear unlikely, if not outright preposterous. However, the intuitive and seemingly obvious negative evaluation stems from a common misunderstanding of human behavior and culture, along with a shortsighted view of history.

People have a tendency to think of human existence as fixed and chronologically homogeneous. This conception gives rise to statements like, ‘Things have always been this way, so there’s no changing them’, or the slightly more insightful, ‘Things are better than they’ve ever been, so we should just stick with what we’ve got’. For many organisms on planet earth, the first statement holds, for the most part (obviously, all organisms and environments change through evolution, but at a speed sufficiently slow to not be at issue here). The hallmark of humans, however, is an additional level of evolution, that of culture. Because humans can so adeptly master, manipulate and alter their own environments, what constitutes ‘human experience’ has been forever shifting. If we look at the last 10,000 years alone – a mere fraction of the history of our species – social organization, technology, scientific understanding, belief systems, moral and ethical codes, and virtually all other aspects of human culture have undergone immense change and elaboration.

The important lesson to take from the science of culture and cultural evolution is that our behaviors and capacities are not immutable features of our biology, but instead flexible and open to innovation. Although cultural evolution has, for the most part, remained undirected, it does not necessarily follow that exercising some control over its course is an impossibility (rebutting the second statement above). Paul Ehrlich, an award winning biologist, has for some time commented on the potential for harnessing the power of cultural change as a means to address problems facing society, most recently in regards to climate change . The task of adapting our behavior and infrastructure to avert environmental disaster is daunting, to be sure. But the forces responsible for massive ecological destruction are the same ones that provide a solution. Through deliberate cultural adaptation, it is possible to implement the policies and practices essential to the survival of our civilizations, as well as our fellows in the biological tree of life.

Al Gore’s vision of radical institutional change should not be derided as pure fantasy. An awareness of the mechanisms of cultural evolution provides an opportunity to consciously shape our world and how we interact with it. Once the potential for successful societal transformation is recognized, developing appropriate and effective solutions becomes much more realistic.