I’ve followed China’s waste problems for more than 20 years. During this time, I’ve noticed that waste, specifically how we manage it, has been a key point of criticism in our industrial civilization. Some scholars claim the waste problem is not unique to our industrial society, but to traditional society. The term “waste” dates back in Chinese history to at least the Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD) when it roughly had the same meaning as today. However, there is a huge difference between waste in traditional and industrial societies in terms of quality and quantity.

In terms of quality, the main targets of criticism in an industrial civilization are science and technology. Most ancient waste comprised of natural substances that easily assimilated back into nature. By comparison, modern waste contains a higher proportion of non-biodegradable substances that pose significant disposal problems. Waste and its related hazards, such as pollution, environmental degradation and ecological damage, are results of the wide application of science and technology.

In terms of quantity, the main targets for criticism are the economic model and core concept of industrial civilization. The latter refers to revenue generation, whereby society regards capital accumulation as its core operation. All economic chains fundamentally operate under a model of material and energy transformation, which inevitably causes deforestation and depletion of mineral and water resources to accommodate for solid, liquid and gas waste.

It should be emphasized that waste management problems faced by an industrial civilization are difficult to resolve under the current social structure. Our industrial civilization is on an unsustainable track due to its unsolvable waste problems.

In the 20th century, American electrical engineer Richard C. Duncan proposed a curvilinear model that predicted the industrial civilization collapse by 2030. He claimed that the industrial civilization had been built on low-cost oil, predicting society would break down if there was no cheap oil.

Alternative energy resources were previously not a viable replacement to oil, and world oil production had reached its peak in the 1970s. Under Duncan’s model, 2012 marked an inflection point and industrial civilization would collapse by 2030. People would be forced to live without electricity thereafter, Duncan predicted.

The aforementioned theory only takes into account the issue of energy resources. If waste problems are taken into consideration, the prediction of 2030 being the point of collapse is obviously optimistic. If waste is factored into the equation, the industrial civilization would fall victim to excessive waste rather than an energy shortage.

In recent years, the full extent of China’s waste woes have been recognized and even made international headlines. But human civilization is likely to continue if it pivots from being an industrial civilization to an ecological one.

An ecological civilization transcends an industrial one, and doesn’t represent a simple continuation of it. There are two necessary premises for construction of an ecological

civilization: to conduct a comprehensive critique of the industrial civilization and absorb the essence of traditional civilization.

The author is a professor at the College of Philosophy and Sociology at Beijing Normal University.

The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 622, July 18, 2014.
The Chinese link: http://ex.cssn.cn/djch/djch_djchhg/lajizhitongkelvdeweilai/201407/t20140718_1259385.shtml

Translated by Chen Meina
Revised by Tom Fearon