On the Faults and Virtues of Environmental Intellectuals

Mohammad Ali Tabatabaei (Mehrdad)[1]

Dedicated to Dr. Gholamali Beski

who stood on the side of nature and did not flatter us

The Emergence of “Environmental Intellectuals” and Their Virtues

In his highly instructive article “The Fault and Art of Intellectualism,” after referring to the definition of intellectualism, Mostafa Malekian enumerates and explains its ethics, manners, and afflictions with his characteristic precision. What I seek to express here is a reference to a newly emerged spectrum of intellectuals, under the title of environmental intellectuals, whose characteristics exhibited so far are to some extent consistent with the very attributes Malekian has expressed in defining intellectuals. They are a group of specialists or researchers in the field of the environment who, beyond their profession/occupation or their personal interests and out of a kind of gratuitous giving—that is, a sense of moral responsibility beyond organizational/academic duties and based on a sense of compassion for humanity and nature—spend their time and energy, alongside their specialized knowledge, on raising awareness to improve the condition of “terrestrial life.”

Over the past few years, through the articles, books, lectures, interviews, and films they have prepared and produced, they have greatly raised our awareness of the "environmental crisis" and especially the "water crisis." They warned us that although we have an arid and semi-arid climate, we have put far, far more pressure on our water resources than what green, rain-rich lands extract from theirs, draining the land to its very last breath; because instead of withdrawing 20 percent, we have been withdrawing about 100 percent of our renewable water resources, and this means matricide; it means collective suicide. Because not only have we emptied our underground water tables, but we have also caused the catastrophe of "land subsidence" to occur, and our underground aquifers are being filled with tons of soil forever, and for this reason, no matter how much it rains, we will have no reserves, and this will lead to a migration crisis. They told us that, unfortunately, we have moved past the "water crisis" and reached "bankruptcy water bankruptcy" or "territorial desiccation" and a "post-normal situation," and therefore there is no way back; only if we are skillful can we manage this current situation a little.

پس باید باور کنیم که «50 سال دیگر آب نداریم، نه سطحی و نه آب زیرزمینی»؛ پس «آب کم نیست؛ نیست». بنابراین بخش‌های بزرگی از ایران به‌زودی سومالی می‌شود و در اثر خشکسالی و قحطی میلیون‌ها ایرانی آوارۀ کشورهای همسایه می‌شوند؛ درحالی‌که هیچ کشوری در آن وضعیت حاضر نخواهد بود مرزهایش را به روی ما بگشاید و این یعنی وضعیتی هزاران برابر بدتر از «قحطی بزرگ» صد سال پیش؛ چراکه این بار این قحطی می‌آید که بماند، نه اینکه فقط یک دو سال مهمان ما باشد؛ این یعنی تمدن چندهزارسالۀ ایرانی تا چند صباح دیگر برای همیشه به تاریخ خواهد پیوست و دیگر هیچ نام و نشانی از کشور و فرهنگی زنده با نام «ایران» بر روی نقشۀ جهان نخواهد بود.

Although our initial, natural reaction was to dismiss these claims as exaggeration and not believe them, unfortunately, the more we investigate, the more we realize their truth. Given that these warnings and wake-up calls date back at least over thirty years, the public has the right to ask the academic community, and especially the intellectuals who have served as intermediaries between the academy and the people, what your role has been in educating and guiding society to avert such a danger? Apparently, humanities scholars neglected this field so much that the new generation of environmental specialists themselves took the initiative and came from the university among us, the people, to shoulder the burden that we humanities specialists failed to carry.

Fortunately, a study of the collected works and statements of this group of environmental activists shows that, in addition to their expertise in one of the environmental fields, they are also more or less familiar with areas related to the intellectual's task, such as philosophy, literature, religions, mysticism, politics, sociology, and psychology, and therefore can be good candidates for lifting this burden left on the ground. It also seems that most of these activists have accepted, to varying degrees, a fundamental point: that the great predicament which has gripped us today under the name of the environmental crisis is not solely caused by environmental factors (like climate) and social ones (e.g., governmental activities); rather, the people's own culture, that is, the behaviors of each and every one of us citizens, has also played a role in bringing us to this point. Hence, in the last one or two decades, a great deal of these activists' energy has been spent on civic education, and this is precisely what Malekian identifies as the distinguishing feature of intellectuals compared to politicians and technocrats: "The intellectual, insofar as he is an intellectual, is concerned with reforming the inner realm of human beings."

All of this is, of course, very good news for Iran's declining nature, and it means that whatever we say in praise of this new class of unassuming and hardworking intellectuals, we have said too little. Nevertheless, if they are truly intellectuals in this sense, they expect fair criticism from us more than praise, so that together we can help improve the condition of Iran's nature ever more.

The Fault of Environmental Intellectuals

What I intend to address here is pointing out a major fault of these intellectuals, which, as it happens, is the same major fault that has plagued the entire intellectual movement in Iran over the past century: "that the intellectual considers himself the representative and spokesperson of the people (presumably against the ruling power) and naturally the guardian of their beliefs, attitudes, and values."

I mentioned earlier that the virtue of today's environmental activists is that they do not exclude the role of the people from their equations and, in any case, believe that part of Iran's environmental problems today stem from the incorrect culture of our people; wrong cultures such as destroying the environment instead of preserving it, high water consumption in personal life, using single-occupant vehicles, excessive use of plastic, failure to separate waste, and so on. All of this is excellent; but when we place these teachings alongside the ultimate solutions proposed by this group of concerned individuals for preserving Iran's environment, we see that the emphasis on the role of social institutions becomes so prominent that the recommendations concerning the people seem to be merely moral advice, not very important or vital. The lectures, articles, books, and documentaries that have appeared in the public sphere of Iranian society in recent years, especially regarding Iran's water crisis, have placed such emphasis on the role of governments in destroying Iran's water resources that it is as if the oppressed and innocent nation of Iran played no role in this, except for using a bit more water in their showers or washing their cars, which itself accounts for only a negligible percentage of Iran's total water consumption and plays no significant role compared to the over ninety percent of water consumption in the agricultural sector, which traces back to the policies of Iranian governments over past years.

It has been insinuated—and continues to be—that the dam-building of recent decades, the issuing of permits for deep wells, and, in short, the policies of governments aimed at self-sufficiency in agricultural products are the root cause of the current environmental crisis, and that the only way out of this predicament is to compel the government to change its water policies. It is rightly said that, according to the indicator provided by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development for resource sustainability and measuring water crises, withdrawing more than ten percent of water resources signifies entering a water crisis phase; whereas we are currently withdrawing 90 to 110 percent of these water resources; yet everything is presented as if citizens have played no role in this over-extraction, and as though throughout all these years we have been an oppressed and innocent nation, afflicted by imprudent and ignorant officials, and our very existence has been squandered.

Of course, no one can deny the role of incompetent officials in this matter. Everyone who has written an article about Iran's environment, and especially the water crisis, has addressed this issue from some angle, and today everyone, even officials past and present, acknowledge the faults and failures of government authorities in this regard; therefore, my discussion here is not about exonerating any of the rulers over the past seven decades (that is, since the technology for large-scale water storage and extraction entered Iran). All those criticisms are valid in their own right and deserve diligent pursuit by all those concerned about the environment.

But what I intend to raise here as a blight on environmental intellectualism in Iran is this: why do these intellectuals issue indictments only against governments? Why has no one ever issued an indictment against the people? Why has no one said that these dam constructions or the issuing of permits for countless deep wells in various regions of the country, which have brought us to this day, even if carried out at the behest of government officials, were fundamentally undertaken for what reason? Did the officials extract our water to export it abroad, or has our own insatiable appetite as Iranians for consuming various water-intensive products (especially wheat and rice) been and remains so excessive that, regardless of any regime, any government, and any policy, matters would ultimately have come to this pass?

What do I mean by insatiable appetite? I mean that we are a highly demanding, excessive, gluttonous, comfort-seeking nation lacking foresight, wanting to use every possible means to achieve immediate prosperity and fleeting pleasures, without considering in this pursuit what our right and share of nature truly is. These words will certainly seem very bitter and stinging; words that no environmental intellectual has ever spoken to us with such clarity and frankness. But the truth is that when we look closely at the statistics and figures, the above descriptions will not seem exaggerated in the least. I do not wish to go into these details in this article; one could demonstrate in a separate article, in detail and based on figures and numbers, how these traits are combined in us. Here, I will suffice with just one very small example.

The Most Consumptive People in One of the Driest Climes on Earth

Iran ranks 159th out of 177 countries in terms of average annual precipitation; that is, only 18 countries (such as Djibouti, Iraq, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Turkmenistan, etc.) receive less rainfall (see: here). Nevertheless, in terms of national consumption of blue virtual water (i.e., non-rainfed agriculture), we rank first among countries with populations over five million (see: the chart below, taken from here) and second in the list of all countries worldwide (after Turkmenistan) (here). Note that the discussion here concerns virtual water, not water consumed for drinking or ordinary household uses. Due to the close connection between virtual water and food, these statistics mean that our dietary style differs so starkly from other countries. It is therefore not far-fetched to call us the most wasteful people in the world; especially considering our income (water resources) and expenditure (food consumption). My claim now is that with such appalling consumption (and in such an arid climate), even if we were to import eighty percent of our virtual water from abroad, our water resources would still not suffice for such consumption, and we would still find ourselves in a water crisis.

Does it seem unbelievable? A small calculation suffices to understand it: we have a population of 80 million and, in the most optimistic scenario, 100 billion cubic meters of water annually. Yet each of us consumes 5,100 liters of virtual water per day, which totals nearly 150 billion cubic meters annually! With such a ruinous consumption culture, it is natural that even if we imported 80 percent of our virtual water from abroad, we would still be forced to extract at least 30 percent (that is, ten percent more than the permissible limit) of our water resources from deep underground to satisfy this insatiable appetite (worse still, the country's population grows daily, while our water resources diminish yearly). But what does importing 80 percent of virtual water mean? It means having very powerful industries so that by exporting their products we could import this amount of virtual water; like countries such as Japan, Korea, and England (see the chart above). Is the work ethic and conscience of us Iranians truly comparable to that of the Japanese, Koreans, and English? Absolutely not! This no longer relates to the type of government or this or that administration; it is a matter of the work conscience and public discipline of each and every one of us people of the "Land of Iran," who imagine that among all the peoples of the world, "Art is found only among Iranians, and that is all!"

What Environmental Intellectuals Did Not Tell Us

Environmental intellectuals have said and written a great deal about the developmentalist policies of governments in Iran. They have rightly said that today's crisis has its roots in seventeen different factors, almost all of which trace back to governments and state policies; but why has no one ever said that the overconsumption and poor eating habits of us Iranians, along with laziness and carelessness in work (plus a host of other cultural factors), have been the main causes in pushing governments toward those particular policies? If we were an entrepreneurial people and could, through our own perseverance and resolve (regardless of government support or lack thereof), build money-making industries like the American software or hardware giants, or Japanese and Korean electronics, or European automobile factories, and if, alongside this, we were a people moderate in food and consumption, and if, instead of being fatalistic and indifferent toward the future, we were a people concerned and worried about the environment and future generations (and a multitude of other cultural 'ifs'), the developmentalist policies of governments in Iran would have put pressure on our arms and minds instead of on water resources. Let us not forget that all the officials of this country are made of the same stuff as these people, and all the above characteristics, by virtue of being part of our collective spirit and disposition, exist in them as well. Therefore, one cannot turn a blind eye to the cultural and moral problems of Iranians and speak only of the responsibilities of governments.

But why have environmental intellectuals, except in exceptional cases, never spoken to us of such matters, and why do they not do so? Perhaps because, for better or worse, every Iranian intellectual fundamentally thinks that they are "the spokesperson, representative, and advocate of the people, and they want and strive to obtain justice for the people from those who have caused their external circumstances." If this has been and is the state of intellectuals in the humanities, what expectation can one have of intellectuals in the environmental sphere, who are primarily engineers and technocrats? Naturally, that technocratic outlook directs this group of environmental advocates toward seeking the root cause of every natural problem in techniques, which are usually implemented by governments, and not in civic cultures.

Apparently, in the view of these environmental intellectuals, once Iranian citizens learn to separate their waste and litter a little less in nature, or at most use less water when showering, they have well fulfilled their historical role in overcoming this crisis and bear no further blame for the current water crisis!

A needle pointed at ourselves as well!

اما شاید تا حدی باید به این دسته از مهندسان و فن‌سالارانِ روشنفکر حق داد؛ بالاخره آنها در درجۀ اول مهندس و فن‌سالارند و بعد روشنفکر، و بنابراین حتی در همین حد که به ما یادآوری می‌کنند که برای توسعۀ پایدار، نیازمند انسان‌های معنوی‌تری هستیم، باید دست‌بوسشان باشیم. این عزیزان پیش‌تر هم متواضعانه دست یاری به سوی عالمان علوم انسانی دراز کرده و از آنان برای حل این معضل کمک خواسته بودند. سؤالی که در اینجا پیش می‌آید این است که ما اصحاب علوم انسانی در این زمینه چه کرده‌ایم؟ به جز چند همایش بی‌خاصیت دربارۀ محیط‌زیست که هیچ نظریه یا راه‌حل کارآمدی از آنها درنیامد، فعالان عرصۀ علوم انسانی چه مشارکت فایده‌مندی در این زمینه داشتند؟ دانشکده‌های علوم اجتماعی‌مان، که ظاهرا از دهۀ شصت شمسی متوجه این بحران بوده‌اند، تا کنون جز چند مقالۀ آکادمیک در این زمینه دستاوردی نداشته‌اند، که آن مقالات هم عمدتا ناظر به نقش دولت‌ها یا دربارۀ تاریخ فرهنگی آب در ایران است، و در کنار این، اگر نشستی هم برگزار کرده‌اند برای دور کردن مردم از «معرض اتهام»، و برای جلوه دادن آنها به عنوان «قربانی سیاست‌های آبی غلط» بوده است. عالمان و روشنفکران دینی‌مان هم، در بهترین حالت، در میان آیات و روایات گشتند و چند رهنمود حاکی از لزوم احترام به طبیعت یافتند و به این ترتیب تمام دِینشان را به محیط‌زیست ادا کردند، و روشنفکرانمان هم، اگر توصیه‌ای داشتند این بود که از فرزندآوری خودداری کنیم؛ چون وضعیت محیط‌زیست به‌قدری وخیم است که باز کردن پای انسانی دیگر به این جهان ویران اخلاقا درست نیست.

The website Anthropology and Culture has opened an online dossier on the water crisis in Iran, introducing 50 links related to intellectual or pseudo-intellectual activities in this field, featuring material from prominent professors across various disciplines, from anthropology, sociology, and economics to hydrogeology and water resource management. In the midst of this, most of the diagnoses and proposed solutions are directed at governmental institutions, and only in a few instances can one find passing references to the necessity of cultural cultivation among the people (such as Kaveh Madani, Mehdi Mirzaei, Khadijeh Catherine Razavi, Hadi Taghipour Ardeshiri), which are themselves limited to activities like showering or washing dishes, etc., and only in one or two cases has the consumerist culture of Iranians in general been mentioned as an important factor in this crisis (especially in the remarks of Abdolreza Vaezi Hir and Jabbar Rahmani; see Jabbar Rahmani's criticisms of technocrats here as well). But on the other hand, we also have intellectuals who explicitly state that "the water crisis has nothing to do with the people's consumption culture" and therefore "we have no right to throw the ball into the people's court. What role do the people have in creating these events?" and so on.

This is the sum total of what humanities scholars have achieved in confronting a crisis that will soon engulf Iran and Iranians entirely, and we have yet to see the need, or have not wanted, or have not been able, to find a better solution than pinning all the blame on an invisible entity called the government, or essentially erasing the problem and proposing a halt to childbearing. This manner in which our intellectuals engage with the issue reminds me of the various characters in the film “First Reformed” (directed by Paul Schrader), most of whom place the blame on invisible figures like God, nature, the state, and so on, while Michael, as an environmental activist and concerned individual, finds his only solution to environmental destruction by humans to be suicide. Would it not be better, instead of playing the role of these characters, to choose the role of Pastor Toller at the end of that same film and, by accepting a penitential austerity, strive to be the “first reformed generation” that, to atone for our past mistreatment of nature, imposes some hardship upon ourselves so that the state of the earth might improve?

Summary and Conclusion

This article in no way negates or denies the theoretical views and practical efforts of environmental intellectuals; rather, while personally acknowledging that I have learned a great deal from each and every one of them and continue to do so, I emphasize that I am merely seeking to add a supplement to that entirely technocratic perspective.

Thus, everything that environmental experts have said so far about the state’s unfulfilled duties in tackling Iran’s water crisis is entirely correct and endorsed, and must, through the repeated emphasis of all of us, become a public demand so that no government can shirk its responsibility. Likewise, everything recommended regarding the duties of producers to improve production methods in order to reduce water consumption is entirely correct and endorsed, and must, through our continuous follow-up, become a social imperative so that water consumption in agricultural, livestock, and other production is minimized. All of this must and should be endorsed and pursued by all of us. All of this is correct, without a shred of doubt.

But none of this should serve to cover up the crucial role of each and every one of us, the people, and our lifestyle in confronting the environmental crisis, especially the water crisis. Today, the situation has reached a point where either we all sacrifice together to save ourselves and our children, or we all perish together. It is therefore strange that, on the one hand, we explicitly state that overcoming this crisis requires a national austerity, and in the same interview we ask, “Where do the people fit into this game?!” It is astonishing that, on the one hand, we offer solutions to civil institutions that people must change their consumption patterns (without specifying to what pattern), and immediately contradict that same solution by saying that “education and culture-building (is culture a public toilet that we can simply build?!) is a deferral to the impossible, meant to relieve the ruling system from the pressure of public demand to curb the drying up of Iran.”

The truth is that experience has shown that in a country like Iran, changing the people’s culture, though very difficult, is far easier than changing the behavior of states and governments. Over the past several decades, governments and states, despite their daily emphasis on the necessity of preserving the environment, have taken no significant action in this regard in practice; but in contrast, the people’s culture in dealing with the environment, especially over these past few years with the spread of virtual media among the populace, is improving day by day. The undeniable truth is that our governments have remained as they always were; but our people, in recent years, have gradually improved in many cultural components (for example, driving culture, gender behaviors, verbal violence, etc.) as a result of the culture-building efforts of media practitioners. This is due to the dominance and power of social networks, which are also being well utilized by environmental activists. Therefore, if environmental intellectuals, regarding the water issue, were to emphasize the people’s consumption culture to the same extent that they expend energy on changing the behavior of governments, they would certainly achieve results much sooner and to a greater degree.

We must accept that under these circumstances, one can no longer speak in a conciliatory and laudatory manner as if people, each and every person, have no role in the improvement or deterioration of the environmental situation and that everything (even national austerity) depends on the decisions of the government or producers. We must accept that although the cause of all current crises is government decisions and producers' activities, these causes themselves are the effects of the demands and dietary habits of Iranian society. Because the diet of each one of us demands 5,100 liters of water per day, whatever government and whatever producer there may be, at best can only compensate for a part of this need through exports and improving production efficiency; yet we, with this consumption style of ours, still exert destructive pressure on our water resources, and consequently on the environment, and in this way, we will destroy ourselves. Therefore, yes, we need national austerity, but by our own will and choice, not through the plan, program, and implementation of the government or this or that entity, which very quickly leads to chaos and rebellion.

If any government official, or even any journalist, tells people to eat less meat, bread, and rice and to work more and better, people quite naturally have the right to rebuke and reproach them, saying they want to shift the burden of high costs from their own shoulders onto the people's; so nothing is expected from government officials or even journalists; but what about academics and intellectuals? Should they too fear the people's reproach and rebuke and flatter them, or should they endure the people's blame and shout the truths, however bitter, at the people?

[1] I am grateful to my dear friends, Morteza Tabatabaei, Hossein Amirkhani, and Ali Kashani, for reading the initial draft of this article and for their valuable suggestions for its improvement, and I regret that I could not incorporate all of their noteworthy considerations into this piece.