Toby threw some questions at a page then fucked off to Melbourne, leaving Lans the opportunity to interview our UoW lecturer, Nityanand Jayaraman aka Nity.

Nity spent 30 years as a social activist, researcher, & journalist and is now pursuing a PhD in political science.

Based on your training as an engineer, could many of the mechanical and electronic systems around us be designed in a way that does not harm our environment?

It’s not about whether everything can be made that is benign to the environment but whether things can be made at the scale that we consume and throw away and the answer to that is no. Because it is not so much a problem with the design alone but with the metabolism, the rate which we extract, consume, and dispose, and the kinds of materials that we extract, consume, and dispose. That unfortunately has become exceedingly high in an economy which is vested in capitalist growth. So, I think that is our fundamental problem, it’s not a problem with the design of a product, but a design of the economy.

Are we currently under a political and economic system capable of sustaining a planet for future generations?

Political and economic systems are not static. If I were to comment on the dominant political and economic system, the answer would be no. Currently, we don’t have the kinds of systems that would help us prepare for the future and leave something for future generations of human and non-human life forms. But I believe that politics is not static. There is always tension, and a moment that allows forces and ideas that have been suppressed for a very long time to come up. And we’ve seen that in the manner in which colonisation has been slowed and lots of gains have been made in the space of gender and indigenous rights. Those gains are not permanent, but neither are the losses.

I see you’ve researched indigenous knowledge systems. What is the relationship between these systems, indigenous rights, and our planet?

Western knowledge systems have made themselves as the universal knowledge system, as the only way to know reality, and there are no other ways to make sense of the world. But as indigenous knowledge systems and non-western knowledge systems have different ways of making sense of the world, what they define as a world is very different to what western systems define as a world. In western science, the world is there and I’m over here observing the world in an objective manner, whereas in non-western traditions, you and the world are one. There is a kinship with the world with what the west calls nature. So, the connection between knowledge systems and the rights of the people who hold that knowledge system are vital because it’s part of their identity and how they make sense of reality.
In terms of what does it hold for our future and how to deal with the planetary crisis? These systems talk about a different way of looking at what Western science calls nature. Western science objectifies nature, it treats it as an object which can be inert and can be manipulated, exploited, and managed. It can be abused, but it can also be managed scientifically by deploying the experts and the elite knowledge holders. Their knowledge can be deployed in order to be managed scientifically. This is where we are going in terms of global discourse: leave it to the experts; the UN will solve the problems. The UN looks at natural agents as inert systems that can be controlled by human beings; that’s a fundamental difference between Western and non-Western science. I think that having a glimpse at our relationship with this place and this world form a non-western science point of view will allow us to, first of all, assume the humanity we should have in order to deal with these crises but also be able to look at ways to relate to each other and the planet that will actually be healthy, and not be exploited, and be respectful to the fact we are insignificant compared to the forces of nature.

What are some micro-level changes students can make in their daily lives to reduce their negative environmental impact?

There are many things that one can say. But I will say they aren’t as important as developing a critical mindset to be able to tell BS from real things. Oftentimes, there is a pressure to think of solutions even before one understands what the problem is, and most of the solutions end up being problems for someone else, usually people who are less able to resist it. So, I will say there are micro-level things regarding how you move yourself, what businesses you patronise, are you looking at local businesses and businesses who are responsible? Are you trying to reject and boycott and make a case and talk about why you are rejecting and boycotting businesses who are involved in human rights violations, who are perpetuating patriarchy, who are perpetuating environmental destruction? So, I think that you would change the way you clothe yourself, move from one place to another, buy and sell, and how you treat the land.

Is there a point at which nature stops and humanity begins? Or is the only thing distancing us from this Earth our own habits and culture that harm it?

If you come from a knowledge tradition that does not separate you from nature, then there’s no question of distancing yourself from nature. A lot of cultures, fortunately, still have that connection. So, the problem might be that we have lost that, somewhere along the way. It’s not like Western science has always been like this; there were moments that have converted the sciences into looking at nature as an object. Also, science emphasises the objectivity of neutrality, which is an issue as it says you have the possibility of positioning yourself away from nature, observing it, understanding it, then doing things to it. So, it means that distancing is an essential requirement under the dominant knowledge tradition. And bringing ourselves back, close, would not be possible under this tradition. We would need to again subscribe and learn from traditions that are not dominant now. Our fight must be partially making sure that the fight for valorising non-western science and ways of knowing becomes prominent.

Is much of the world so consumed by technology as to be out of touch with, or even not notice, the physical world and the harm their virtual lifestyles are causing it?

I would say that there is a certain intent in keeping us blind to these things by showing us a different way of a good life. Our education tends to reinforce that distance and separation. So, I think that there are other forms of education (being outdoors, being with new people, and what you do inside family settings), which matter, and I think that those are all scientific bases of revolution.

Would our current dominant political system be open to change to help the environment?

No, political systems are made by dominant people and forces that benefit from them. Currently, they are forces that either are services of or benefit from capitalism, and that is inimical to sustainability or just the future. Concessions are made in order to make sure people don’t riot; it’s a matter of managing dissent in order to let business as usual continue. And people push that boundary, that is what our job is.

Would this be enough, or must we change our lifestyles?

A better way to change would be the way we do business. The way we interact with the environment; to derive meaning for ourselves and substance and the way we interact with each other.