Alan Carter's Four Components Of An Environmentally Hazardous Dynamic

An environmentally hazardous dynamic is an, “interrelational, self-reinforcing dynamic” (Carter 6.2), made up of four components: a centralized bureaucracy, military forces, inegalitarian economic relations and environmentally damaging technologies (Carter 6.2). Each of these four components supports the others to thrive in a society that has, “…brought us to the brink of an eco-catastrophe” (Carter 6.2). Alan Carter suggests that there is a direct correlation between military conflict and the influx of environmental stress, while stating that World War II is what marked the beginning of a movement that introduced these environmental stressors. “Many pollutants were totally absent before World War II, having made their environmental debut
To summarize his four main points, he started with the role military forces play in his dynamic. He then mentions that an egalitarian society is necessary to deter away from environmental catastrophe (Carter 6.2.4.2). Convivial and alternative technologies make it possible to become environmentally aware by using technologies that are safe and non hazardous (Carter 6.2.4.4). And lastly, having a more decentralized government (that places an emphasis on local level politics) would be more beneficial because the federal government would no longer play a large role in establishing environmental policies (Carter 6.2.4.1) but would leave that up to local governments who know their own localized environment best. Carter’s ultimate solution involves combining all four of these aspects to reach a common ground. Carter calls this an environmentally benign interrelationship and its “…major difference [is] that, whereas the former appears to be driving us towards collective suicide irrespective of our wishes, the latter would seem to allow us to live in harmony with the rest of the biosphere upon which we depend” (Carter 6.3). For governments to be decentralized, we need to have a egalitarian society. If we have an egalitarian society, there is a better chance that governments and workers would support more convivial technologies. With convivial technologies, this might support a more pacifist society causing for less arms and less military defense. “…that convivial working arrangements would most probably foster, is widely regarded as a condition for pacifist defense and non-violent social control” (Carter 6.3). There would be less of a focus on nationalism, which “…an awareness of the global nature of the environmental crises also seems to promote” (Carter