View - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

198Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethicsdiscussion can be considered taboo (e.g., Hardin), or the importance of the problem is denied (e.g.,Orr and Ehrenfield, 1995).Arguably, there is no human society so monolithic that every individual denies that a particularproblem exists or does not feel upset about societal norms. Some remain silent or take covertaction; others speak out and sometimes lose their lives or social status; still others may be highlyhonored after their deaths (e.g., in the environmental field, Rachel Carson and Aldo Leopold). However,both taboos and denials are powerful social forces and should be a matter of concern. Inaddition, there are always a few people who think they can beat the odds, however formidable theyappear to be.Hardin (1996) defines taboo as a prohibition excluding something from use, approach, or mentionbecause of its sacred and inviolable nature or an object, word, or act protected by such a prohibition.Since the concept of sustainable development has been embraced by both organizationsand people whose practices do not proclaim a reverence for natural systems, some very powerfultaboos are preventing a free and open discussion of implementing sustainable use of the planet.Even if the taboos do not prevent people from talking about sustainable use, there is denial. Ifdenial does not stop free discussion, calls for more studies muffle or suspend it.ILLUSTRATIVE TABOOS ON SUSTAINABILITYAs Harding (1996) notes, those enthralled with a taboo not only resist discussion of it, but theyeven deeply resent the open naming of it. When scientific evidence has implications for the questfor sustainable use of the planet, implications must be communicated and discussed, and valuejudgments need to be made.1. One must not question whether development or “smart growth” is compatible with sustainability.2. Carrying capacity may be discussed for elevators and bridges, but not for humans on a finiteplanet.3. The relationship between population size and quality of life is not open for discussion. In theUnited States, this taboo is so strong that policy goals include extending residency to illegalaliens (Grier and Chinni, 2001).4. One must not discuss the “sixth great extinction” — the first biotic impoverishment primarilydue to humans and their artifacts.5. Redesigning human society for a better relationship with nature may only be discussed in thecontext of economic growth.6. Human dependence upon natural capital, ecosystem services, and the planet’s ecological lifesupport system is not open for discussion.7. Restoring damaged ecosystems can be discussed, but when and how ecological destructionand repair are balanced cannot be discussed.ILLUSTRATIVE DENIALS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITYDenials are merely the taboos of people who refuse to use the word taboo.1. Human population growth is not a problem.2. Highways and other human artifacts have no environmental impact.3. Economic growth, as presently defined, improves the quality of life rather than diminishing it.
Article 231994. Placing trust in the managers of the global marketplace will protect the environment andenrich human lives.5. The willingness to risk global disaster is essential to progress and job security.6. Dominion over all other forms of life is a consequence of human superiority, and there is noreason to be concerned.7. Humans are independent of nature and their intelligence, technology, and creativity free themfrom the natural laws that affect other species.THE ENFORCERSIn 1777, the famous English explorer James Cook introduced his compatriots to the word taboo,which he had picked up in the South Pacific (Hardin, 1996). Of course, repressing speech or practiceswas not new to the western world — only the name was new. Arguably, the quest for sustainableuse of the planet involving both science and value judgments is the most vulnerable aspirationof human society since it requires a free and open discussion of a multitude of concepts andbeliefs. In Polynesia and other cultures, taboos (no matter what they were called) were enforcedeffectively, often brutally, by powerful people. How, one wonders, could taboos possibly beenforced in the 21st century in that bastion of rugged individualism and free speech —the UnitedStates of America? It can be done more easily than one might think.In academe, where analysis and examination of all hypotheses and concepts should be subjectedto rigorous validation and verification, there are speech codes. Much emotion is invested inspeech codes, so a fearless discussion of them is difficult. In addition, politicians depend heavilyupon funding from special interest groups for their increasingly expensive election campaigns.Support for one special interest group will cause countervailing effects in other areas (e.g., protectionof endangered species, which has a tiny lobby compared to most economically importantareas). As Keppler (1995) notes for the United States, special interest groups are adept at penetratingthe political process and using their electoral influence to achieve their goals. In the U.S.capital of Washington, D.C., there are 90,000 lobbyists, in addition to 60,000 lawyers for back up,or 280 for every member of the U.S. Congress. The monthly cost for this is at least US$100 millionand is increasing (Shuldiner and Raymond, 1998). The payoff can be immense: between 1993 andmid-1996, American oil and gas companies gave US$10.3 million to political campaigns and benefitedfrom tax breaks worth US$4 billion (Roodman, 1996). Finally, television stations, newspapers,and magazines are not likely to offend their advertisers; one notable exception appears tobe some radio talk shows. Who believes that taboos cannot be enforced in the land of the free andthe home of the brave?TABOOS THAT FACILITATE SUSTAINABILITYFrom a different view, taboos may have benefits that facilitate sustainability. Taboos may be aneffective method of achieving sustainability while environmental literacy remains low. This prospectis definitely not appealing. However, as one committed to reason guided by evidence and compassion,the following may be regarded as illustrative taboos enhancing sustainability. They are primarilydrawn from Cairns (1997).1. Human artifacts may not systematically increase on the planet.2. The integrity of the planet’s ecological life support system shall not be impaired for any reason.
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 94 and 95:
248Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainab
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?