View - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

178Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethicssustainability strategies are progressing satisfactorily, but “top-down” (i.e., system level) sustainabilitystrategies are not. Furthermore, the connections between these two strategies are largelyunexplored (Cairns 2003c). Worse yet, there is strong opposition to abandoning unsustainablepractices. Sustainable practices are more favorable to maintaining peace because they diminishbut do not eliminate resource wars.POLICY ISSUESThe policy of expecting perpetual growth on a finite planet is no longer tenable and shouldhave been abandoned in the 20th century. Although Ruth Patrick advocated “use without abuse”of natural systems in 1948, the concept of sustainability originated with Brown (1981). He defineda sustainable society as one that is able to satisfy its needs without diminishing the options offuture generations. Years later the definition (somewhat modified) was used by the World Commissionon Environment and Development (WCED 1987) in a report that received much internationalattention.It is abundantly clear, however, that most individuals and their leaders the world over have littleor no literacy in sustainability. Most people would probably endorse Brown’s (1981) definition ofsustainability. Many more, including corporations, would endorse the WCED (1987) definition,since the word sustainable is used as an adjective to define the noun development and this nounis strongly associated with growth, which is the world’s dominant paradigm at present.In the United States, a major belief is that present practices need only be modified to be sustainable— hence the term “smart growth.” This conviction is usually accompanied by the concomitantbelief that technology will provide the solution to even the most intractable problems, i.e.,biotechnology will solve the food shortage and even the water shortages (e.g., treating unpotablewater). As a consequence, few (if any) nation-states have in place and are implementing a broad,“top-down” sustainability strategy. Furthermore, effective implementation will require more knowledgeof component parts (e.g., sustainable transportation) than is now available. Fortunately, thereare a number of steps toward sustainability that could be implemented at once while a global, “topdown”sustainability policy is being developed.ACHIEVING PEACE VIA SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE PLANET– Diminish the probability of resource wars by moving toward a more fair and equitable allocationof resources.– Preserve Earth’s ecological life support system by allocating more than 12% of the totalresource to this purpose.– Cease immediately all environmentally perverse government subsidies (Myers and Kent 2001),but expect a fierce fight from the special interest groups that benefit from subsidy dollars.– Stay within carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of ecoregions, nation-states, and theplanet should be more precisely defined in terms of sustainable use, focusing on maximumcapacity (low quality of life) and optimal capacity (high quality of life).– Stabilize human population size and even reduce it if it exceeds carrying capacity. With regardto exponential growth of the human population size, one is reminded of the tale of an elephantin a small room — everyone sees it, but no one wants to talk about it.– Achieve zero net immigration. Zero net immigration should be enforced by all nation-states(e.g., Browne 2002). Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, makes a mockery of attemptsat population stabilization. Arguably, even more serious is that immigration encourages
Article 20179– nation-states to export people to avoid solving their population and sustainability problemsinternally.– Control ecological footprint size. Careful analyses of ecological footprint size (Wackernageland Rees 1996) should be made at all levels of social organization. (Useful websites on ecologicalfootprint size are www.environment.govt.nz/footprint/input.html or www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.html or www.mec.ca.apps.ecoCalefood.jsp or www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint.default.html.) Important issues to consider are: (1) global disparity in ecological footprintsize; (2) impact of the total human population on the ecological life support system ismore important than related subissues of poverty, racism, and individual rights; (3) Biosphere II(Earth is Biosphere I), a 3.1-acre airtight mesocosm in Arizona, USA, illustrated quite well thatan ecological life support system cannot be created and kept functional for a long period oftime. Humankind should not think that an ecological life support system could be created withpresent knowledge. The lesson from Biosphere II is that the ecological life support system nowfunctioning must be protected because a replacement is not possible at present; (4) ecologicalfootprint size is not a robust measure of quality of life; (5) unsustainable practices damage theecological life support system, which results in a per capita reduction in ecological footprintsize; (6) incentives to overuse resources (large ecological footprint size) must be markedlydiminished; (7) a sustainable quality life does not depend on material goods consumption. TheUnited Nations Development Programme asserts that a sustainable quality of life is achievedby “creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive,creative lives in accord with their needs and interests.”NURTURING THE TECHNOLOGICAL/INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMNurturing is exceedingly difficult without peace among humans and the other life forms withwhich they share the planet. The war on (destruction of) the world’s ecosystems is, arguably, moreimportant than wars between nation-states. Lasting peace requires inclusion of all life forms.If humankind aspires to both lead the “good life” and leave a habitable planet for posterity, it isessential to preserve both the ecological life support system and the more recently developedtechnological/economic life support system. Present population size, demographic distribution,and level of affluence do not permit any other alternative. Cooperation of all humankind in this effortwill only be possible if there is a vastly improved social equity and peace.The definition of the “good life” is critical. If it is based primarily on acquisition of material goods,the ecological life support system will continue to be degraded. If based on a sense of communitywith both members of one’s own and other species, the good life may be possible. Prugh andAssadourian (2003) believe that the survival of Homo sapiens is not in much danger from anythinghumankind might do to the global ecological life support system. This belief is dangerous becausepaleontological records show that the typical fate of a species is to become extinct. The assumptionof indefinite survival for humans is probably untenable if there is both massive global climatechange and a significant change in the evolution of new species more suited to new environmentalconditions. It is not prudent to gamble with extinction while the alternative of living in a mutualisticrelationship with the present ecological life support system appears possible.Precautionary measures are always preferable to assumptions of invulnerability, as the passengersand crew of the Titanic discovered too late. On the other hand, as Prugh and Assadourian(2003) remark, most people would not choose a society in which a few people control resources.Mutiny is the likely outcome if the resources are disproportionately distributed, unless a totalitarian
Page 1 and 2: INTERNATIONALESEP BOOKSJ O U R N A
Page 3 and 4: Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainabili
Page 5 and 6: Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainabili
Page 7 and 8: 161Article 18Reproduced with permis
Page 9 and 10: Article 18163trate on cigarette smo
Page 11 and 12: Article 18165remained hostile and m
Page 13 and 14: Article 18167WAR AND THE STOCK MARK
Page 15 and 16: Article 18169SECURITY AS A DEFINING
Page 17 and 18: 171Article 19Reproduced from Ethics
Page 22 and 23: 176Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
Page 32 and 33: 186Article 21Reproduced from Ethics
Page 56 and 57: 210Article 25Reprinted with permiss
Page 74 and 75:
228Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
Page 76 and 77:
230Article 27Reproduced from Ethics
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
288Article 35Reproduced with permis
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
show all

View - ResearchGate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?