RE: the big debt

["Nicholas Day" <apyxnd@nottingham.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


>> By our existence we use resources. Our individual existence, even for the
>>most careful, results in the generation of carbon dioxide, waste and the
>>depletion of natural resources. Agreed, our lifestyle will have a major
>>impact on the level of damage we do to our environment, but if it is wrong
>>to damage the world a lot, is it not therefore also wrong to damage it a
>>little ? The natural conclusion is that we should all commit suicide.

i think it is true that, if it is wrong to damage the world a lot then it is therefore wrong to damage the world a little, but i don't think that any release of carbon dioxide whatsoever, for instance, counts as damage.  I think we have to be clear on what is the basis of environmental ethics.  As far as i'm concerned (and i'm sure many would disagree) the argument goes something like this: it is a good thing that happy living things exist, happy living things need an environment to sustain them, therefore it is a bad thing if the environment is used in a non-sustainable way such that less happy living things will ever exist.  i.e. what constitues environmental damage is the sort of damage that hurts animals and people, and damage that makes it such that less animals and people can be supported happily in the future.  If greenhouse gases just made the temperature rise by an amount which didn't effect any living thing then who cares?  if someone spills oil all over a totally uninhabited lake that nothing inhabits or could inhabit, and that no-one ever sees, then who cares? (not that i'm gonna go round finding such lakes and pouring oil over them just to pass the time or anything :-)  ).  

so, the conclusion to that fact that damaging the world a lot is wrong, then so is damaging the world a little, is not that we should all commit suicide, but that we should aim for lifestyles that are environmentally sustainable because such a lifestyle causes no environmental damage (in my sense) and this should be done because the environment is what sustains happy living things, and we want to be able to sustain as many as we can through the course of history - it would be selfish to just wipe it all out with just our generation (not that i'm suggesting that this would be very likely.)

Apologies to anti-utilitarian folk who had to grit their teeth through all that.

Nick

>>> "Bernie Doeser" <bernie@doeser.org> 08/28/05 3:56 PM >>>
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Some problems with this line of thought

- By our existence we use resources. Our individual existence, even for the
most careful, results in the generation of carbon dioxide, waste and the
depletion of natural resources. Agreed, our lifestyle will have a major
impact on the level of damage we do to our environment, but if it is wrong
to damage the world a lot, is it not therefore also wrong to damage it a
little ? The natural conclusion is that we should all commit suicide.

- Are we doing the right thing? Recent studies into the effect of the ban on
whaling have had, have shown that certain species of seal are now endangered
as some whales who used to feed on discarded whalemeat are now eating seals.
By attempting to change to a less harmful policy we have resulted in
unintended more harmful consequences. At the base of this issue is the
problem that our actions are links in causal chains. What we decide to do
may have an intended benefit in the short term, and an unintended
dis-benefit in the long term. The release of minks into the wild, the
introduction of river perch into African lakes and the introduction of
rabbits are examples of human actions intended to make some positive change,
but which resulted in far greater damage than benefit.

- The environment as a shared resource. I wonder if the history of "the
commons" can help us better share our use of the environment. Shared village
pasture ran the risk of being over grazed by individual farmers - shared
property always suffers from "unfair" exploitation. Mechanisms to control
this generally take the form of centralising ownership, either through
privatisation, or through governmental control. The resource is then
formally managed. But can this be done with the environment ? To some degree
this is happening already - permits to pollute and carbon trading are
examples of where governments are taking steps to manage use of the
environment.

- Conflicting values. David Bellamy has recently been the subject of much
criticism (and has been dropped as patron of the Centre for Alternative
Technology) as a result of his opposition to wind farms - an example of
where there is a conflict between some visual/aesthetic value and another
air quality/greenhouse effect value.

In a way we could be said to be cursed with our capability for moral action,
as whatever path we take will face some form of valid criticism. Of course
we could abandon all hope of making moral decisions about the environment,
but a far better approach in my view is to rapidly expand and improve our
understanding of the environment, then at least we stand a chance of making
fewer mistakes.

Bernie Doeser
Sandiway, Cheshire, UK.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Alice Evans
Sent: 27 August 2005 12:02
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: the big debt

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

Ausser,

apologies if ive misunderstood ur points but...

1. you seem to imply that just because previous species have become extinct,
so too our own must some day perish.

But there are 3 major problems with this view;

(it overlooks our intelligence, the real problem and other species)

1. Our intelligence to realise that our lifestyle threatens others and that
we can do otherwise, i.e. such behaviour is needless, entails that we have a
duty and responsibility to do otherwise.

Just because previous species have become extinct does not entail that
future generations of our own have no rights claims to a viable existence.
unlike the puffin, we are able to conjecture and rationalise. we have
realised that our behaviour impoverishes the opportunities of future
generations. such intelligence endows us with a duty and responsibility to
act in the interests of future generations.

2. you may argue that future generations have no rights claims to existence
but given that is within our power to provide them with similar
opportunities that we have benefitted from ought we not act accordingly? it
is not so much that or species will become extinct but that future members
of our species will be unable to utilise the earth's ecological resources,
for we will have plundered them.

its not just a matter of the species ending but that their opportunities
will be limited and their standard of living will suffer as they endure the
consequences of ever-increasing pollution, tropical storms, a lack of energy
sources etc etc.

3. even if our species does become extinct, what about other species
suffering at the hands of our selfish exploitation of this planet? surely
the debt is due to all those we have taken from. i mean u cant really say
that we owe this debt to the planet, because its not a 'moral agent', so to
speak, but surely we owe this ecological debt to all those which have an
actual or potential interest in such matters.

As Aldo Leopold said "[We need to] change the role of humans as conquerors
of the land community to plain members and citizens of it".

Surely, each person should attempt to maintain a degree of sustainability in
their lifestyle but at present we are incurring a massive ecological debt.
We use far more of the pot than which we are entitled, merely on the basis
of "wanting to, being able to and hence doing".

Can any suggest a defence for current behaviour?

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm