It’s not just about coexistence but persistence
Credit to Author: GAB MEJIA| Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 16:27:33 +0000
A DEAR friend recently sent me a letter about a tale of two tall trees. One tall tree is shorter than the other. The tall tree does not look down at the less tall tree. Neither compare — they breathe, they live, they just are; a simple tale, which shares a valuable yet often forgotten lesson about what it means to coexist and what more there is to learn in this unstable time. A lesson that has predated history, has been explained in the ecological biology of mutualism, and has been continuously practiced by indigenous tribes in how they live their lives day to day. Getting only what they need, not more than what is provided for them. And giving back more than what they already have.
This year, the Earth Overshoot Day, or the date humanity has exhausted the ecological and natural resources it can generate within the year, has been pushed earlier to July 29. This means that all the days after this date, we are already consuming more than the Earth can provide — a date that has been derived from the measured bio-capacity of our planet and the ecological footprint of humanity. Basically, it would take about 1.75 Earths to meet the current demand of every living person, according to a report by the Global Footprint Network, where, in reality, we only have one Earth. We are already borrowing resources from a future that we do not have, and a future that is meant for the people of tomorrow.
Though this global average of 1.75 Earths could be misconstrued into thinking that we are all to blame, some of the more developed countries like Australia and the US are actually consuming more relative to developing countries like India, Brazil and the Philippines. In fact, despite the stark difference in population between India of about 1.39 billion and the US of 327.2 million people — if every human being on Earth lived like India, we only need a measured 0.7 Earths, much less than the global average. But if everyone in the Earth lived like the US, we would need a staggering 5 Earths, which is about three times more than the global average.
Analyzing and contextualizing this deeper in society, the discomforting and unjust truth is that developing countries like India and Brazil pay a higher price compared to developed countries like Australia and the US in terms of reaping the consequences of the ecological, political and climate-induced catastrophes happening within their nations. Cities in India like Chennai are being gripped by drought and flames due to extreme hot temperatures that the nation has been annually experiencing, consequently leading to a major water crisis affecting about 11 million people. In Brazil, the demand by consumers, the greed of businessmen and the policies imposed by their government have led to the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, causing the catastrophic fire outbreaks that have startled the whole world, even plunging the city of São Paulo in momentary darkness.
Though more developed countries like the US are also now experiencing stronger and more severe climate change- induced hazards — like the category 5 Hurricane “Dorian,” which battered the Bahamas and has put Florida in a state of emergency — the US with its greater economic advantages, theoretically could pay off in rebuilding communities and cities that have been struck with such deluge without any foreign assistance and aid. Brazil had been offered donations of $20 million by the G7 countries led by France to combat the fires in the Amazon forest, which their President Jair Bolsonaro unfortunately declined.
A question now arises whether Brazil’s socioeconomic state can pay off both the short-term damage of the fire, and the long-term consequences of the destruction of one of the world’s most important natural engines and biodiversity. Can other developing countries and lesser economies say the same, like the Philippines, which is now bracing against more severe typhoons, and like the Pacific Island of Tuvalu, which is now adapting as their nation continues to sink with the rise of global sea levels? More and more political and climate-induced adversities will continue to bombard different countries with the depletion and scarcity of our limited resources like water, food and possibly even clean air.
Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the term “coexistence” — more than just a question of whether our nations will exist at the same time and with socioeconomic space given the limited natural resources that we have, but to evaluate it through persistence through time. Because, yes, it may look like the countries of Brazil, India, the US, France, Australia, Japan, the Philippines and other nations could be coexisting today, but will these nations continue to persist through the different level of vulnerabilities that each country faces amid the unjust distribution of our unsustainable consumption? Who can give more, and why aren’t they doing so when it is most needed?
We may all be living different lives, but we only have one Earth no matter what time.
Email: jgbmejia@gmail.com
Instagram: @gabmejia