Environmental Issues and Ethics
Just as environmental problems have a recent history, environmental ethics is also a recent philosophy. Environmental ethics first emerged as an ethical philosophy in early 1970s. The main problem with traditional ethical philosophies is that it is anthropocentric, that is, it places humans at the center of the universe and everything else around us has value only in its utility to humans. This philosophy does not take into account the intrinsic values of things. Laal (2009) explains that intrinsic value is the value of things as ends in them regardless of whether they are also useful as means to other end. The basic tenet of environmental ethics is to assess intrinsic value of all non human things. What this means is that before taking any action which can directly or indirectly affect the non-human things around us, we must assess the intrinsic value of these things. Thus a tree is not merely to serve as a source of food, shade, oxygen etc humans but it also has its own intrinsic value in that it could be hundreds or even thousands of years old or it could be part of a rainforest making it special. Once we realize that every non-human thing also have rights of their own, it becomes easy to understand environmental ethics. Unfortunately, the more concerned we become with our environment, the more we realize how totally dependent we are on the destruction of this very environment in order to progress. The example below will explain why, despite caring for the environment, it is extremely difficult for the modern human to act positively.
There are a number of environmental issues which require the humans to think ethically and with a long-term perspective. These issues range from the emission of greenhouse gases to deforestation and even hunting and killing of animals. For centuries, many of these issues were not important since they did not directly impact the humans. But in the modern era, technological development has meant that every human activity leaves behind some amount of carbon footprint which directly or indirectly affects the environment. For example, even the process of writing this paper affects the environment in a number of ways. I am writing this paper on my computer which is running on electricity. The production of electricity directly impacts the environment. The computer was manufactured in a factory which had impacted the environment in a number of ways. I carried out internet searches to gather material for this paper. These searches were able to give quick accurate answers because certain companies have huge database centers which consume a lot of power. The paper on which this essay will get printed was manufactured after the cutting of trees. Thus even the simple act of writing this paper has impacted the environment is a number of different ways. And this gives rise to the ethical dilemma. Should I stop writing this paper because it is hurting the environment. Unfortunately, that is not possible. And yet it is environmentally unethical to write this paper.
This simple example shows the magnitude of the problem. Though it would seem that it is impossible for humans to function without dangerously impacting the environment, the fact is that until a few hundred years ago, man managed to live in comparative harmony with the nature. With the advent of the industrial revolution, human activities have increasingly harmed the environment until even the simple act of drinking a glass of water can have several environmental concerns. As Armstrong (2006) points out, even management of water has today become a matter of concern. Some people argue that human advancement is not possible without hurting the environment. This argument does not take into account the fact there is only a limited supply of environmental resources. If we keep utilizing more and more resources for the advancement of human societies, there will come a point when no more resources are left and this technological advancement, which is so heavily dependent on the environment, will collapse. Hence, even according to the consequentialist approach, it is our ethical duty to protect the environment.
And yet, being ethical about the environmental issues is increasingly becoming difficult. As Spash (1997) points out, when taking environmental policy decisions economists consider if the costs of implementing a policy is greater than the benefits that accrue from that policy. What this means is that environmental economists can justify continued emission of greenhouse gases on the grounds that potential damages are smaller than the benefits created from the emissions. Such utilitarian approach to decision making must take into account the fact that environmental issue often have long-term consequences and are irreversible. However, many decision makers look only at the immediate trade-offs making it almost impossible to make the right decisions. There is nothing wrong with the utilitarian approach to handling environmental ethics as long as one considers the long term implications of present day decisions.
This inability to take right decisions spans across a large number of industries and policy makers. Although driving cars or conducting an internet search also directly or indirectly harm the environment, perhaps nothing hurts the environment more than a governments decision to go on war with another country. Most people consider wars ethically wrong because they hurt humans. But when we look at the non-human factors affected by a war, especially modern warfare, we realize what a huge damage we are doing to our planet. Again, as in other cases, the environmental dangers of a war are a lot greater today than they were a few centuries ago when the most sophisticated weapons were a bow and arrow and a sword. Today, however, with the advent of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, a war does not just kill and maim the humans but also hurts the environment. And yet, this has not stopped countries from accumulating more and more of these dangerous weapons and going on war at the smallest real or perceived dangers. Indeed, the twentieth century was the bloodiest year in the history of mankind. And unlike wars of the past, the wars of twentieth century also damaged the environment. This begs the question if we have got our priorities right. As Ehrlich (2003) points out that the Iraq War was most probably carried out so that the American way of life could be preserved. However, is it ethical for the Americans to drive gas guzzling cars when it not only endangers the life of Iraqis but also our future generations. The Iraq War was supposedly carried out to depose cruel dictator. Even if we assume that killing Saddam Hussain was a good thing, was it ethical to start a war which would in the long run hurt the environment. All this shows that although humans are naturally ethical, we have probably got our priorities wrong. In the context of environmental ethics, this question of priorities is well explained by Rolston (2007). He explains that mankind has prioritized sustainable development, that is, development within environmental constraints, at the cost of sustainable biosphere. While sustainable development reduces the demands on environment, it remains to be seen if in the long run it will manage to save the biosphere.
It is not as if humans have not tried to address the environmental problems that we are facing today. Governments across the world have entered into over 150 multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) to protect our planet. Unfortunately, when it comes to implementing these agreements, many of nations are found wanting. Also, despite being aware of the huge problems which can result if we consider to ignore our environment, many countries try to wriggle out of making any solid commitment on a variety of grounds.
Developed countries such as the United States avoid signing such agreements on the grounds that signing any such agreement would result in grave harm to their economies. On the other hand, developing nations such as India and China argue that their affect on the environment is miniscule when compared to the developed nations and hence they should not be forced to sign any such environmental treaty. As a result, although governments around the world may have been signatories to over 150 MEAs, their impact on the environment has been limited. This tendency has repeated itself again and again with the introduction of every new attempt to save the planet. The Kyoto Protocol has not had much success in limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases and the recently concluded Copenhagen Summit was a failure. This lack of political will is direct result of unethical attitudes towards the environment. Considering the fact that the major world powers are reluctant to adopt environmentally friendly technologies for the fear of jeopardizing their economic prosperity shows how dependent we have become on these destructive technologies. Hence, the need for more sustainable technology has become extremely urgent. Population growth has meant that Earths carrying capacity is already stretched. If something is not done about the way we use and abuse our environment, it will nor be long before there is no environment left to exploit.
The argument that limiting emissions of greenhouse gases will cause a slowdown of economic process is a very anthropocentric one which is only concerned with what is best for humans. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the argument fails in the long run. Even if we stick to an anthropocentric ethical viewpoint, it is only ethical to protect the environment because it is in the long-term human interest. Let us examine various ethical philosophies in regards to the environmental debate. Consequentialism states that the consequences of our actions decide if an action is ethical. Going by this philosophy, technological advancement at the cost of environment is not ethical since at the rate that we are going, it will take only a couple of generations before we run through all the available natural resources and then there will not be any more resources left to use in the existing technology. Or let us consider deontology. The act of using the environment to satisfy our immediate needs can never be ethical if in the long run this act is going to hurt us and our children. Similarly, virtue ethics, relativism and other ethical philosophies can never condone the way we humans are using our environment. Thus, it is imperative that humans develop technology which is environmentally friendly and base future economic and technological growth on these technologies. And as explained above, this remains are ethical mandate whether we look at ethical problems from an anthropocentric perspective or a biocentric one.
So now that we have established that it is only ethical to protect our environment, the next question is how we can do so. The current craze is with sustainable development. Sustainable development means developing at a pace and in way so that the development can be sustained for a longer period. Unfortunately, sustainable development only prolongs the inevitable. This is not to say that sustainable development is not a good thing. Considering that everyone from industrialists to politicians to farmers seem to have taken to the idea of sustainable development, it would not be prudent to abandon the concept. If nothing else, the concept of sustainable development helps to buy us time to come up with more biosphere friendly technologies. However, sustainable development on its own is not much help and needs to be supported with other measures which will ensure that our biosphere outlives human needs and wants. In this respect, Rolston has suggested the idea of sustainable biosphere. In contrast to sustainable development, which sees the Earth as a resource, sustainable biosphere requires that we establish framework for a baseline quality of environment and than work out the economy within this framework so that the quality of life is determined by the quality of our environment and not by the number of cars we own.
If we are to do something for Earths environment, we will have to change the way we think. For centuries, humans have run after a better life to the extent that self-development is now recognized as a basic human right. Unfortunately, such an egalitarian viewpoint is not in harmony with the environment. If we want a sustainable biosphere which will continue to support mankind for centuries, we will have to limit our needs.
Having said that, we have to accept it is human nature to want more. It is genetically wired into us because it was this need to accumulate as much as possible which helped the mankind survive in the past. So even though the idea of limiting our needs to ensure a sustainable biosphere seems like a good one, it is not a practical one. Sustainable development, despite its limitations, is the best way to go for now. Sustainable development will ensure that we prolong the annihilation of our planet long enough for humans to develop technology which are in harmony with nature.
Thus sustainable development shows the way to fulfill our ethical duty towards planet and future generations. It is our ethical duty to protect our planet and its flora and fauna so that our future generations can enjoy it. However, human nature and the state our current technological advancement means that we cannot do much about it at present. This does not mean that we will not find a way in future either. Sustainable development provides a way to prolong the life of our planet while we search for an ethical way to live in harmony with our environment.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment