View - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

194Article 23Reproduced with permission from Nirmala Academic and Research PublicationsScience & Society 2(1):15–24, 2004Taboos and Denials:Major Obstacles to Sustainable Use of the PlanetJohn Cairns, Jr.Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USAABSTRACT: A taboo is a (1) prohibition excluding something from use, approach, or mentionbecause of its sacred and inviolable nature and (2) an object, work, or act protected by such a prohibition.Denial is a refusal to believe in the existence or reality of a fact or entity. Human societyprofesses to believe sustainable use of the planet is a means of leaving it in a habitable conditionfor future generations. However, a taboo, especially among mainstream politicians, has beenplaced on the free and open discussion of present practices that are unsustainable. At the core ofthe taboo is the refusal to discuss the certainty that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.Reducing population growth and/or immigration to achieve a stable population is an example of amore specific taboo. Even in societies that profess to be liberal, there is either denial that the problemsexist or a profession of excessive optimism about the future, even without substantive supportingevidence. Achieving sustainable use of the planet will require a free and open exchange ofideas on the present practices that are sustainable and which unsustainable practices should beeliminated or greatly modified to make them sustainable. Until then, the term sustainable developmentwill be a placebo rather than a cure.KEYWORDS: Sustainable development; Compassion; Value systems; Eco-ethics.A man said to the universe: “Sir, I exist!”“However,” replied the universe,“The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.” Stephen Crane, 1899INTRODUCTIONThe poet Stephen Crane recognized over a century ago that the human species has no specialrights and its mistakes are not forgiven any more than those of any other species. If humans are tolive sustainably on the planet, they must openly discuss the factors that are essential to this aspirationof sustainability. Making such discussions taboo or denying that major obstacles to sustainableuse of the planet exist is not a productive approach!
Article 23195Ryan and Durning (1997) give a “Warning to Readers” that reading too much STUFF at one timecan be bad. Even reviewers (presumably, experienced people) of early drafts of journal articlesreported feeling overwhelmed or depressed after learning the true stories of how things are made.I had the same response to Material World (Menzel, 1994) —the disparity in material goods fromone family to another was shocking. Pessimism about what is being done is justified.However, optimism is justified about what can be done to achieve sustainable use of the planet.For example, Hawken et al. (1999) describe an environmentally sensitive form of capitalism thatprotects and rehabilitates natural capital (e.g., top soil, old growth forests, wetlands) and providecase histories of such undertakings from both developed and developing countries. Raffenspergerand Tickner (1999) also give case histories related to the general duty of precaution in environmentalprotection for governments and business. Nattrass and Altomare (1999) focus on the use ofplanetary resources by businesses in ways compatible with sustainable use. Quinn (1999) providesa philosophical/ethical justification for social solutions for an actively caring relationship withnatural systems. While their observations are not limited to natural systems, the Dalai Lama andCutler (1998) examine happiness (as distinct from pleasure) that, since it is not based on materialpossessions, would enhance the possibility of achieving sustainable use of the planet.BENEFITS OF OPEN DISCUSSIONOpen discussion of the consequences of promiscuity has definitely moderated the problem ofAIDS in some countries, although the crisis is far from over. Similarly, societies that openly discussedthe problem of driving automobiles while intoxicated have reduced the problem and almosteliminated it in countries with strict laws and considerable peer pressure. People who openly discussedthe adverse consequences of these behaviors were not labeled “gloom and doomers” andwere not commonly challenged with statements such as “I am optimistic about the future.” Howcan one account for this difference in attitudes? One strong possibility is that only one primarybehavior needed change, not a multidimensional array. Also, the consequences of driving underthe influence were immediately apparent in many cases, and, in the case of AIDS, a single momentof carelessness could have devastating, although not immediately apparent consequences.THE DOWNSIDE OF TARGETED COMPASSIONJust as most teenagers regard themselves as immortal and age proof, the case histories of theenvironmental collapse of ancient civilizations (e.g., Diamond, 1994, 1997) are ignored, as are contemporaryparables such as that of Nauru Island (McDaniel and Gowdy, 2000) in the Pacific Ocean.Most people have never heard of Nauru, and many of those who have note that it is a quite differentculture and “it couldn’t happen here.”However, Hardin (1993) hits a more crucial aspect when he notes that society fails to mandateeconomic sanity because human brains are addled by compassion. High-powered lobbyists mayhave a major impact as well. Should all environmental protection be put on hold until every humanon the planet has the same ecological footprint as wealthy individuals? Cairns (1998) believes thatsustainability requires a balance of three types of compassion: (1) for those presently disadvantaged,(2) for other species with which humans share the planet, and (3) for future generations.These types of compassion are more difficult to achieve simultaneously and are less personallysatisfying than targeted compassion. Future generations and other species cannot express gratitude,so one’s personal efforts are difficult to distinguish from comparable efforts of other likemindedindividuals. On the other hand, if one sponsors a starving child (targeted compassion), then
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 56 and 57: 210Article 25Reprinted with permiss
Page 90 and 91:
244Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
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:
274Article 32Reproduced from Ethics
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
278Article 33Reproduced from Ethics
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?