Global Connectivity - Rethinking the relationship between humans and nature in a post-pandemic reali

By Dominique Keizer

Lockdown. A keyword that for many has come to be associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Closed public spaces, lack of social interactions and rapidly changing economies. The images of empty streets became a discursive tool that confronted us with new imaginations of what space means and especially how it is situated within an ecosystem. During the initial months of lockdown, news outlets in many European cities discussed the return of nature due to decreased human mobility and the resulting drop in CO2 emissions. But then, one might ask, where did nature go? This position itself poses a serious question of what is being lost in the quest of economic growth.

The need to construct an exclusively human world is according to Dr Sharon Blackie a paradox that has led to insanity. To quote her words: “[…] when we lose our relationship with the land and the other creatures around us, then in the deepest sense, we lose ourselves […].” In a way, the current tendency to put humans as agents above nature distorts the natural cycles of an ecosystem which otherwise is capable of self-preservation. We humans are part of this bionetwork.

Therefore, perhaps instead of questioning the return of nature we should listen to what nature is trying to tell us. Rising sea levels, extreme weather shifts, and contaminated waters are only a few examples of the ecological consequences that the world is facing. The extensive use of sanitization chemicals and disposable face masks, among other single use plastics, has only added toxic material to the environment. These protective tools, while playing an important role in limiting the spread of the virus, have also exacerbated the already visible ecological concerns. Meaning, destructive events are, to a great extent, caused by human dissociation from an interconnected ecosystem.

Dhaya Eddine/Unsplash

The post pandemic reality needs to be adopted as a wake-up call to evaluate business as usual, which is favoured as a means to mitigate the recent economic slowdown. The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is one example of what a strictly human-centered world results in and what business as usual actually entails in broader terms. The mismatch between supply and demand has led to high income countries off-shoring resource-intense production. The high demand for meat consumption, mainly in Europe and Asia, created a space for economic activity in areas with available resources. The Our World in Data project has shown how pastures for beef and soy are the main driver of forest loss. This mainly occurs in the Southern hemisphere and specifically in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. For that reason, according to Conservation International (CI), a non-profit environmental organisation, rural areas in the tropics and indigenous territories are being destroyed. Consequently, it is forcing wildlife habitats to migrate to other areas, whilst exposing wild species to domesticated animals and humans. What that means for future animal-borne illnesses is yet to be researched, though it is already alarming to note. COVID-19 has shown how such diseases can spread rapidly. Yet, economic imperatives alongside their impact on nature are still scarcely discussed as relevant.

Meat consumption, however, is only partially driving the destructive disconnection between humans and nature. The distortions in international trade during the pandemic have shown the dependency of many countries on low-cost labour and fragile supply chains. In economic terms, until the closing of borders, both aspects allowed economic gain, while simultaneously destroying the environment. Stores around the world faced lack of sufficient supplies, meaning the over consumption patterns visible in the society are undoubtedly based on externally produced cheap goods. Recently, decreased free cross border movement has led to inflation.

The clothing industry in Bangladesh shows how offshoring to countries with low-cost labour allows for frequent change in assortment to meet the demand of the consumers. Besides the disproportionate value between local wage and final product price, waters around the factories are contaminated with the chemicals used for production. As in the case of the economic activities in the forest areas, species residing close to the clothing industry are prone to toxicity and thus, for survival reasons, migrate to nearby unpolluted areas. This results in the offshoring of not only production but also pollution which makes economic activity incompatible with sustainable natural habitats in the production sites.

Colombian philosopher and anthropologist, Arturo Escobar stated: “Historically, the production of surplus with the concomitant social and institutional differentiation allowed humans to emancipate themselves from nature, albeit at the price of enslaving part of the population.” These words reflect the reality that lies behind consumer practices that can also be defined as ideological. The emancipation from nature for the sake of uncontrolled growth is like creating an invisible wall around the market. At the same time, one can argue that infiltrating an ecosystem artificially for economic gains also equals the enslavement of nature. In Aldous Huxley’s science fiction novel “Brave New World”, a lack of sufficient consumption was considered a crime against society. The book was written in 1931. Yet, it describes precisely the ‘utopia’ people are currently made to believe in. Advertisements for products are designed discursively to make us believe that they guide our happiness patterns and fill the hollowness inside us. But, what if the destruction of nature for the sake of these products creates the emptiness that these advertisements promise to fill? With that in mind, maybe business as usual is just a vicious cycle that only keeps economic inequalities intact and serves to preserve the not-so-utopian values described by Huxley. Nostalgia towards the pre pandemic lifestyle is broadly recognised. What about the nostalgia towards the disappearing ecological diversity? If one imagines what is already destroyed, is this loss worth the return to economic growth? Both the deforestation of the Amazon and the clothing industry in Bangladesh portray the often dark reality behind investments, whether for infrastructural projects or consumption products. Perhaps the current pandemic, in this understanding, is just another consequence of intending to invent a strictly human-centric world.♦

►Grampians National Park, Australia. Image by Manuel Meurisse/Unsplash