Ecological revolution, take one

The human-Nature relationship is both direct (we are Nature, we sense Nature both inside and outside of our bodies), and also mediated by our tools. As in all interconnections in Nature, the relationship is two-way. We affect Nature, Nature affects us. Humans develop in particular ways through the tools they use. The mediated relationship affects Nature in different ways, new tools change what is possible. And to the extent the tools are taken up and used, they change the human-Nature relationship.

Historian James C. Malin, described an approach to the history of the human-Nature relationship in terms of cultures (or perhaps more accurately, different modes of production, expressed as "cultures") competing for the same environmental space. The degree and scope of exploitation is determined in part by the tools. In his description of this difference, he makes an interesting observation which echoes today in the discussion over "peak oil":

[T]he more complex invading culture possessed technological tools and skills which made available different or wider ranges of options applied to the exploitation of the area, bringing into the flow of utilization existent resources that were latent under the displaced culture. That point deserves special emphasis. The earth possessed all known, and yet to be known, resources, but they were available as natural resources only to a culture that was technologically capable of utilizing them. There can be no such thing as the exhaustion of the natural resources of any area of the earth unless positive proof can be adduced that no possible technological 'discovery' can ever bring to the horizon of utilization any remaining property of the area. An attempt to prove such an exhaustion is meaningless, because there is no possibility of implementing such a test. Historical experience points to an indeterminate release to man of such 'new resources' as he becomes technologically capable of their utilization. ("Ecology and History", 1948, in (History and Ecology: Studies of the Grassland, edited by Robert P. Swierenga, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1984.)

(For more on how new technology changes the available oil equation, see "Why $5 Gas Is Good for America" in the December, 2005 Wired)

Carolyn Merchant has written about "ecological revolutions", where there are dramatic changes in the environment due to either dramatic natural (or non-human) events, or the kind of rapid change brought on by Malin's "invading culture". Merchant's Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England (University of North Carolina Press, 1989), describes two revolutions: the "colonial ecological revolution" brought on by European settlers in the period roughly from 1620 - 1675, and the "capitalist ecological revolution" in the period roughly from 1800 - 1860, both of which dramatically changed the New England environment. From the introduction, it seems clear that she is referring to different modes of production, each of which left it's heavy stamp on the ecology of the area.

John Bellamy Foster's The Vulnerable Planet: A short economic history of the planet (Monthly Review Press, 1999), also breaks down the history into stages: pre-industrial, industrial, and imperialist. While a very concise and readable survey, I couldn't help but notice the startling absence of reference to new technologies that make possible new modes of production. For example,

The Industrial Revolution can be defined as a sudden take-off in growth as the result of a series of economic, social and ecological transformations. Its principal elements were the growth of the factory system the expansion of wage labor, the increased reliance on machine production, and the rise of the modern industrial city. (p. 33)

No mention is made of the revolution in motive power that enabled the transformation of the manufacture system to the industrial system. I wonder if this is a Monthly Review thing -- Ellen Mieksin Wood's book The Origins of Capitalism (Verso, 2002, but originally published by Monthly Review Press; she served as editor of the Review from 1997 - 2000) is a fascinating analysis of capitalism emerging out of English agriculture, but she deprecates the role of the development of the productive forces in the overall process. Productive forces include not just "tools", but technique and organization (skills, craftsmanship, even processes like crop rotation) as well, and not just the tools of production per se, but also the tools of communication and transportation. And it would seem that this changing technical environment makes possible new social forms. But I suspect by narrowing the conception of productive forces, she can separate "agricultural capitalism" from productive forces, and in fact up-end the relationship of productive forces and property relations:

The conditions of possibility created by agrarian capitalism -- the transformations of property relations ... were more substantial and far-reaching than any purely technological advances required by industrialization. This is true in two senses: first purely technological advances ... were not responsible for the so-called 'agricultural revolution' that laid the foundation of industrialization; and second, the technological changes that constitute the first 'Industrial Revolution' were in any case modest. (p 143)

In other words, property relations precede and determine productive forces. I realize it is a weak argument to say, "but that's not what Marx said" to another Marxist. Still, it seems nearsighted to not see the constantly developing advances in science, in agricultural technique, in timekeeping, in shipping, in financial markets, etc. that altered the economic environment -- exposed new dimensions and faces of Nature, changed its shape, and made new forms of social organization and property viable. The absence of a 17th-century "killer app" does not indicate the lack of technological progress, nor does it negate the importance of technological change to forms of property relations that emerged in English agriculture. (And of course the productive forces and the property relations exist in a dialectical relationship, each sphere affecting and interpenetrating the other.)

Anyway, the point I am considering is that to the bundle of interconnected processes -- technology revolution, economic revolution, social revolution -- we must ecological revolution. The project I see emerging is a piece that would compare the human-Nature relationship with production regimes, with stages of capitalism (roughly, mercantile, agricultural, industrial, imperialism, globalization), with forms of Capital (mercantile, land, industrial, finance, speculative). With each stage, the relationship changes in some way. Changes in consciousness are bundled up in that (dialectical). And especially to explore what, if any, new relationships either come to the fore, emerge, or are made possible at the stage of speculative capital (or globalization).

jd