Ideological Dissonance: A Case Study

Ultimately environmentalism and capitalism are antagonists to each other. This is in honor of earth week.

Capitalism’s philosophical basis is that everyone works hard for their own personal gain and by doing so, providing each other with goods and services that benefit the society (i.e. the consumer). Each contributes to society and is rewarded by society to their own degrees. However through this, a detrimental effect to the third party (greater society) is created and is not compensated for (pollution).

For example, if I produced water bottles, I would just be concerned with how I can increase my profits by increasing my revenue and decreasing my costs. By producing and selling water bottles, I contribute to the benefit of the consumer (hence make profit) but this transaction will also harm the greater society via pollution (this is a negative externality). If the producer were to take the environment around them into consideration, they would have to create the bottles properly, invest into biodegradable plastics, purchase more expensive water purifying methods, etc. thereby increasing their costs. In the real world, this likely would not happen because the goal of each supplier, would be to maximize profits. Sure, the firm could be holy and invest in sustainable practices out of its own free will; however that is not economically sustainable. The government can put restrictions on the supplier, but the supplier would only reluctantly follow and would see his profits decrease. This is antithetical to the capitalism and the free market and the problem remains: profits are prioritized over environmental protection. Businesses will always seek out new ways to be more efficient, new materials, new products, and new methods of pollution. You can analogize the water bottle example to most goods and services produced. The only way the producer will be content with using sustainable practices is if the sustainable practice brings in more profits relative to the unsustainable practice (i.e. more revenue or lower costs).

Similarly, consumers will choose goods and services that benefit themselves the most. The effect on the environment is not consistently thought about when an individual performs their actions throughout the day; thus, the environment is nearly always, at most, a secondary consideration. Benefit depends on two factors, the utility or pleasure derived from the product and its cheapness. A consumer will purchase the product with the most benefit (not the most environmentally friendly), utilize the product (disregarding the environment), and dispose of it in the most convenient way possible rather than the most ethical way possible (recycling). This is because humans are concerned with their own well-being more than those of others. We cannot assume that man will put the greater good higher in priority than their own well being. This is a cynical view, but is the position of capitalism nevertheless: by man fulfilling his own need, he fulfills the needs of others through trade.

The best for individuals is not necessarily the best for the society. It’s a vicious cycle, suppliers will produce the most profitable goods. Consumers demand the products with the lowest price and highest utility. Environmentalism is not, and will not, ever be sustainably considered in the free market because environmentalism will only increase prices and costs and is a 'waste of time' in the short term.

Therefore, the entire philosophical basis for the economic system in an eco-friendly country cannot be capitalism, the goal of which is to increase an individual's wealth and by doing so helping others. The correct philosophical basis for an eco-friendly country must be environmentalism, with the individual's goal is to not impact the environment as much as possible. This means each policy the government acts out must benefit the environment in some way. Keeping our environmental glasses on, the only way trade can occur is if the environment is not harmed in the process. The practices of each deen aren’t necessarily in conflict with each other as much as the goals of each deen. Note: I don't intend violent physical revolution as much as I intend violent mental revolution.

Therefore, ultimately environmentalism and capitalism are antagonists to each other.



(Interesting note: without hunger and desire, capitalism has no place. You can't benefit yourself if you are satiated, and if you can't benefit yourself, you can't benefit society according to the capitalist model. Therefore, capitalism runs on greed, ambition, and hunger.)