Severed: the metabolic rift between humans and nature
By Des Hennelly
Multiple scientific studies have found that capitalist exploitation of nature and workers created the conditions for Covid-19 and that more mass pandemics are likely (see Boxes on Habitat Destruction and Factory Farming). The connections between the well-being of humans, other living things and entire ecosystems have become so clear that a new branch of scientific enquiry, planetary health, has been established to research the links between ecological damage and human ill-health.
Exchange of matter
The concept of metabolism in nature emerged in the 19th century to define the biochemical processes in which organisms process materials and energy from their external environment to convert into building blocks for their own growth. Both Marx and Engels studied the concept closely, and Engels said of metabolism that “the organic exchange of matter is the most general and characteristic phenomenon of life”.
Marx also described human labour, through which humans convert the natural environment into the means of human existence, as a profoundly important metabolic process. “Actual labour is the appropriation of nature for the satisfaction of human needs, the activity through which the metabolism between man and nature, is mediated”. This concept - of the labour process as metabolism - is at the core of Marx’s materialist conception of history and his critique of capitalism.
Capitalism consumes and degrades nature in pursuit of growth and profit without regard for sustainability and the welfare of future generations. Five hundred years of colonial plunder, the genocide of indigenous peoples, and capitalist exploitation has brought us to this perilous state of metabolic rift between humans and nature that destroys the health of both.
Who is responsible?
Throughout our existence, the metabolic relationship between humans and nature has been determined by differing forms of social organisation. Our current social organisation is a system that exists solely to achieve a permanent process of exponential growth of capital. It has just two inputs to achieve this, the natural environment and human labour, and its relentless, singular focus on generating capital growth consumes and degrades people and nature at an ever-increasing rate. Of industry and industrial agriculture, Marx wrote: “…the former lays waste and ruins labour-power and thus the natural power of man, whereas the latter does the same to the natural power of the soil”.
In his exploration of the establishment and expansion of capitalism, Marx described how it severed the relationship between humans and nature by forcing people off the land. “Large landed property reduces the agricultural population to an ever decreasing minimum and confronts it with an ever-growing industrial population crammed together in large towns”. He wrote of this estrangement of humans within capitalist society from the natural environment, the basis of our existence, as an “irreparable rift” in the “metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself”.
Two hundred years of capitalism has exploited the natural environment at a far greater pace than the planet can replace and repair. In response to the escalating degradation of the natural environment, scientists have identified nine ‘planetary boundaries’ relating to Earth system processes that are fundamental to the conditions of existence. The most recent scientific report on these boundaries reported that four of the nine are now in the high risk or danger zone (i) biosphere integrity (ii) interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles (iii) land-use change and (iv) climate change.
Carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere are now far beyond levels that have existed at any time in the 300,000 years since modern humans first emerged. And incredibly, more than half of carbon dioxide emissions produced in all of human history have been released since the first UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was published in 1990. In response, our climate is changing rapidly to a state that humans have never experienced and are unlikely to be equipped to cope with. On our current trajectory civilisation faces an existential crisis and mass extinctions of life forms, already escalating rapidly, would reach catastrophic proportions.
Repairing the Rift
Private ownership of our natural environment is morally indefensible, and the profit-seeking that private ownership generates is the reason we now face multiple ecological catastrophes. Natural resources urgently need to be returned to common ownership so we can mend the rift created by capitalism. We could then democratically plan for a sustainable metabolic relationship between humanity and our planet. Such socialist planning would ensure that fossil fuels are kept in the ground by taking them from the corporations that consume them for profit. Lastly, common ownership would halt and reverse encroachment and destruction of the natural environment and the potential for new pandemics.
Time is short. We need urgent action to repair the damage, heal the metabolic rift and reconnect humanity and nature.
Nearly two billion tonnes of material waste is produced every year. That is enough rubbish to fill 800,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Moreover, it’s projected to increase by 70% by 2050. That would mean nearly 1.4 million Olympic-sized swimming pools filled with everything from plastic toothbrushes and one month old tops from Penneys to old mobile phones and their continually outdated chargers. Already we have mountains of junk leaking toxic chemicals into ourenvironment - can you imagine the devastating effects an extra 1.4 billion tonnes per year on top of what we have now would cause?
Scientists estimate that by 2050, pound for pound, there will be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans. This is not surprising, given that National Geographic has estimated that in 2015 just 20% of the world’s plastic was recycled.
Capitalism does not produce and dispose of waste equally. For example, per capita the US produces seven times the amount of waste of Ethiopia (which produces the world’s least amount). America creates more than three times more waste than China per capita, yet prior to China’s waste import ban in late 2017, China had been buying recycled waste from countries like the US, Ireland, the UK and Australia for the last 25 years. If these countries can’t use China as a dumping ground, where will it all go now? 1
The impacts of all this trash are also highly unequal. Governments the world over have been accused of environmental racism when it comes to disposing of this toxic waste, and rightly so. There tends to be a disproportionate amount of dump sites near homes of people who are in marginalised groups and those earning a lower income. Although there has been extensive research into this issue in the UK and America, there has been no official studies done in Ireland. Using the Irish EPA’s environment map however allows you to check what kind of EPA-regulated activities happen in your area. When comparing Dublin’s most well off areas to the more working-class communities, higher-income areas had no waste facilities within a kilometer of their homes. There were five within two kilometres of a sample of homes chosen in more affluent areas of Dublin and 14 wi thin three kilometres. In contrast, for Traveller accommodation sites around Dublin, there are eight licensed waste facilities within one kilometre, 17 within two kilometres and 36 within three kilometres! 2
Lorraine McMahon of the Ballyfermot Travellers’ Action Project said, “If you look at any Traveller accommodation across the country, it’s always segregated from the community.” This injustice of living on the edge of society near the city’s waste disposal centres can lead to negative health effects and premature death. Labre Park in Ballyfermot has five active dumping facilities within one kilometre. Those living there are quite justifiably not happy about this. Travellers have been set up by Dublin Corporation to live there since 1967, even though the area was never zoned as residential. 3
Research shows that living within five kilometres of a landfill site is a risk to health. Risk of death from lung cancer increases by 34% and hospitalisation for respiratory disease rises by 5%. 4 A study of more than 242,400 people living in Italy from 1996 to 2008, found that exposure to Hydrogen Sulphide, just one of the airborne pollutants released from dump sites, was found to be associated with lung cancer mortality. The results also saw deaths from other respiratory diseases. The association with respiratory diseases is consistent with previous studies. However, possible links with lung cancer would need further scientific confirmation. 5
We have yet to learn the true adverse health effects of living amongst the rubbish piles created by capitalism and its abuse of the environment. One thing is for sure though, the marginalised will suffer far worse than those who can afford to live far removed from refuse heaps.
In the last century, tropical rainforests, which are home to around two-thirds of the world's living organisms, have been halved from 16 million square kilometres to 8 million square kilometres, an area the size of Brazil. In the U.S just 25% of native vegetation remains in the east and Midwest. Only 15% of the landmass remains unmodified by human activities in Europe. On top of this, 60-70% of European wetlands have been destroyed and 20% of marine coastal areas have been significantly modified, often either by dredging rivers and beaches or by building new ports to further maximise profits. A further 20% have been severely degraded by overfishing and pollution. Finally, over 35% of mangrove ecosystems worldwide have been destroyed. 1 To give a more stark figure, in 2017 an area the size of a football pitch of forest was lost every second. 2
These figures are both disturbing and shocking, and the consequences will have long-lasting implications, firstly for the animals that rely on these fragile ecosystems and secondly for the way we live our everyday lives into the future. Destruction of habitats and reduction of species diversity can make ecosystems more vulnerable, contribute to climate change, and as a consequence affect human health and wellbeing.
It’s not me, it’s you, Capitalism
Headline after headline says humans are destroying nature, forever altering the environment. However, habitat destruction, at its core, is driven by capitalism. The greed of big businesses, the willingness to make a huge profit at all costs, and the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few is to blame, not all of humanity.
Examples of habitat destruction by big businesses and corporations are plentiful, from major oil companies devastating rainforests and oceans to factory farms leaking gargantuan quantities of fertilisers and animal wastes into our rivers and streams. Unlike in the past where small areas of land were used to grow crops for families and local communities, for-profit farming requires the mass production of food which needs extra land to grow more crops and animals, which means more land has to be cleared (see box on factory farming). And while we’re left to deal with the consequences, the capitalists make huge profits. Here in Ireland Larry Goodman, infamous beef baron made a ‘largely untaxed profit of €170 million’ in 2019 alone. 3
Covid consequence
The consequences of habitat destruction are many, but one that has affected us all is the spread of Covid-19. Habitat destruction, combined with rapid urbanization and areas of concentrated population growth, brings people closer than ever before with viruses that humans have not previously been exposed to. The resulting transmission of viruses from wildlife to humans is a hidden consequence of capitalist development and the destruction of animals’ natural habitat. Some bat species thrive in these new densely populated areas and are linked to the spread of zoonotic diseases. However, 25% of bats are threatened with extinction from deforestation, climate change, and the bushmeat trade. It’s not the particular species that is the problem, but the disruption and degradation of their natural habitats.
Through Covid-19 capitalism has once again bared its ugly teeth and what’s worse scientists think more pandemics are likely if things go on as is. Scary times indeed.
On the label of your bottle of milk or your carton of eggs, you will often see a picture of rolling hills, trees, or even a vaguely smiling cow. This makes you think of the small rural farm and the pleasant grazing cows and free-running chickens. It’s a powerful, tried and tested marketing tool, but often hides the reality. This reality is factory farming.
Factory farming has a relatively short history and has parallels with mass production in other industries. Intensive farms hold large numbers of animals; typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, often at high densities, with the aim of producing large quantities of meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Innovations in technology, antibiotics and animal nutrition around the mid to late 19th century enabled animals to be mass farmed on scales never before seen. Chickens were able to be reared completely indoors, cowherds could grow bigger without the risks of infections and disease. Coupled with this, improvements in transport of all kinds opened up mass markets that fueled this intensive production of animal products.
These methods started in the United States but eventually, through the late 19th century and 20th century, these methods became the norm throughout the commercial agricultural world. In Ireland, a fairly normal herd of pigs consists of 3,000 animals. Only 2% of pigs in Ireland are living in small herds of 5 or less. Similarly, a flock of chickens can normally be around 3,000. These practices are spread throughout the world. So much so, that it is estimated that two in three farm animals are now factory farmed. 1
This is bad for many reasons, but let’s start with animal welfare. The way factory farming works, it is accepted that a “high attrition rate is outweighed by a massive production rate”. 2 This means that they accept that significant numbers of animals will suffer or die in these conditions, but as long as they’re not losing too much money, they’re ok with it. They are economically indifferent to the suffering of their livestock.
It also doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand that all of these animals in one place creates a lot of waste, and with that waste comes a breeding ground for bacteria and disease. A pig gets sick due to mistreatment and disgusting living conditions, the efficacy of antibiotics has been deteriorating due to overuse, it’s in very very close quarters with other pigs, so passes to the whole herd and then it passes to the humans working on the farms, and bang, you’ve got swine flu. A similar process also gave us bird flu. Confusingly, the most recent version of the bird flu (H1N1) originated with pigs as well, but the process by which it entered the human population is the same, namely zoonotic spillover.
If you haven’t heard of the phrase ‘zoonotic spillover’, it should be seared into your memory. It’s a process whereby a pathogen crosses from vertebrate species to humans. It is a fairly common occurrence, causing an estimated two-thirds of human viruses. The issues arise when these pathogens are infectious. Rabies is a zoonotic virus, but it isn’t infectious, whereas SARS and Covid-19 are. The Covid-19 virus very likely came from factory farming. The oft-maligned wet markets in China are factory farms by another name.
China is often scapegoated as a culprit, but zoonotic spillover events happen all over the world and are often a direct result of deforestation and factory farming. In fact, Europe is a hotspot for zoonotic spillover, due to undiverse nature of the fauna, but let’s not let that spoil a racist rhetoric.
Factory farming is the normal practice the world over and it will continue to pose a risk to us. Epidemiologists globally have been warning us of the dangers of factory farming and continue to warn us that further pandemics will arise. Farmers I have spoken to recognise these practices are unsustainable but feel trapped between low prices for produce and regressive grants that keep them in these modes of farming. Things have to change. Most importantly they have to change quickly in order to avoid the viral crises that are projected to come our way. I don’t want pandemics to be the new normal, and I’m guessing neither do you.