Environmental ethics: social, economic, and political aspects

Environmental Ethics and Morality

Ethics and Morality in Matters of the Planet and its Peoples

It is an awe-inspiring natural world that humans have evolved into and inherited. In it, through it, and notwithstanding its fragile underpinnings, for better or for worse (more on the "worse" side than the "better") humans have carved out cities, countries, societies and standards of living. Some societies, such as Western nations like the U.S., the UK, and other European countries, have abused the planet in a mad dash to continually raise their standards of living. This mad dash is taking a terrible toll on the planet. No longer can there be any doubt that the human imprint - lately "carbon imprint" is the operative term - has caused destruction, dramatic loss of species and habitat and chaos in that natural world. Human stewardship - in particular, unrestrained capitalistic attempts at stewardship - has resulted in disastrous damage to the planet. To wit, steadily increasing atmospheric temperatures - "global warming" - are wreaking havoc; those soaring temperatures cannot be blamed on any natural causes, but rather, on the release of greenhouse gases. In short, it is clear that the survival of this Earth may be hanging in the balance.

Within this framework of wealthy human societies abusing the natural balance of the planet, it must also be noted that environmental destruction caused in the main by highly industrialized nations - China included - is taking a disastrous toll on the developing world. Add to that dilemma the fact that there is, in America and other Western nations, a fundamental lack of any meaningful ethical strategy when it comes to the plight of less fortunate people in the Third World, and one can clearly see a hazy, fragile future for millions of impoverished people.

And hence, therein lies the problem. The ongoing reckless, bullish and greedy grab - by the powerful Western societies - for more technology and wealth comes at the expense of the environment; but also it pushes Third World societies to the brink of desperation and disaster. There is a distinct lack of values in the Western world when it comes to putting the interests of the natural world and humanity first; changes are drastically needed in this perverted system of capitalistic values overriding the true needs of a sustainable planet and healthy, happy people.

I agree with much of what this course has presented in terms of the need to come up with radical, dramatic solutions to enormously important problems. Those problems include world hunger and disease, lack of democracy, overpopulation, resource depletion, and the destruction of habitat and species. Added to that list should be the seemingly lack of commitment on the part of the American political powers to address any of these issues head on. Indeed, a problem as big as any environmental or social issue mentioned is the lack of political will on the part of the American Congress. This political aspect to the overwhelming planetary problems was not reviewed as much in depth as other issues in the class, but it should be mentioned in this paper.

In particular, since September 11, 2001, the will of the Congress of the United States has been either absent due to distractions in the search for political power among individual members, and/or it has been handicapped by a heavy-handed executive branch lusting for its own authoritarian power. The Congress (since 9/11) has turned over a substantial amount of its Constitutional authority to the executive branch. The executive branch (the George W. Bush Administration) has demanded more and more of that legislative and oversight authority and threatened those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives with political retribution if they did not comply with the Bush-Cheney demands. Bush-Cheney have said they know best how to find and kill the terrorists, and any interference by Congress has been dealt with through nationalistic rhetoric and skullduggery. In other words, if you don't support the president's plan to address the terrorists problems, you're not patriotic, and advertising will attack you in your next re-election campaign.

This Bush-Cheney power grab has led to widespread wiretapping and other violations of citizen privacy, all in the name of the "War on Terrorism." The point I make in bringing this up is that the meaningful search for sensible, workable solutions to the problems of hunger, disease, abject poverty, climate change, economic instability caused by corporate globalization and harmful World Bank policies, gender inequality and other issues, are sidetracked by the Bush-Cheney domination of the media. The messages that Americans get over their television (which is where the majority of Americans go for "news") are dominated by the political powers that be, aided by Fox News (Rupert Murdoch, Disney, et al.) which presents Bush as a hero in the fight against the Osama bin Laden-type terrorist and presents a picture of liberals as weak on terrorism and as standing in the way of the Bush agenda of staying the course in Iraq and installing conservative judges to back Bush's policies. Fox reporters, for example, ridicule those who believe there is a serious climate change issue facing the planet; and now Rupert Murdoch, Fox CEO, has purchased yet another powerful media outlet, the Wall Street Journal, a rather scary thought for those who cherish an open, objective and questioning press.

The bottom line is that those voices crying out for reform - an end to Third World debt, a freeze on genetically engineered food, a strong push for ecologically-friendly technology for developing nations, fairness for all within the animal kingdom, addressing climate change with revolutionary tactics, and more - are being drowned out by the rhetoric of the right wing, led by Bush-Cheney. The executive branch, in effect, has hijacked the airwaves and has turned the attention of Americans away from the lack of stewardship of the planet, its species and its less fortunate citizens. The executive branch has (in at least three known instances) censored science in order to change facts into language more compatible with their agenda.

Along with that, the profit motive of TV networks drives TV executives and programmers to rely on ratings, rather than the dissemination of real and important news events. Hence, the TV news shows tend to focus on kidnappings, child molesters, weird killings and bizarre celebrities like Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton, because those people and their issues bring in better ratings and more advertising dollars. it's about money, not the truth.

What are my views when it comes to potential solutions? For starters, I thoroughly agree with 90% of what Ame Naess and others in that genre are thinking and writing vis-a-vis deep ecology. As to all the essays available for research into this paper, the ideas and concepts put forward in deep ecology make the most sense to me. An earth consciousness on the part of the citizenry is necessary before specific changes can be attempted at the government and community level.

DEEP ECOLOGY: Simply being "nice" to nature and planting a few trees on Earth Day - while local television reporters provide video coverage so there is a "reward" for the good deeds - is no longer a realistic option. When it comes to the preservation of the natural world, there are far deeper questions to be asked, and to be answered, than just those that apply to science and conservation. The opinion of bright learned and philosophically alert people must be given consideration in matters of deeper truths regarding the planet, the conservation of the planet, and how humans should approach these above-mentioned issues.

For example, one of the approaches to take when searching for a workable strategy, for seeking that elusive truth and perspective, is the concept of "deep ecology." The phrase was coined by Arne Naess in 1973; author Naess was attempting to delve more fully into the spiritual approach to issues of the natural world and the human relationship to that natural world. An essay by Bill Devall and George Sessions points out that deep ecology should be viewed as far more than "a shallow approach" to problems of an environmental nature. Deep ecology is also involves philosophy and ethics - as those disciplines relate to human understanding. Devall and Sessions quote several learned individuals as they present their essay; among those quoted is Theodore Roszak, who sees deep ecology as "...an awakening of wholes greater than the sum of their parts" (Devall, et al., 264)

In order to begin to grasp what people like Naess, Roszak, and others of equal scholarly stature are saying, a careful, thoughtful reading of essay materials must be conducted. The essay by Devall and Sessions asserts that in order to embrace deep ecology one must first make a radical exit from the "dominant worldview" of the material world. That dominant worldview is one in which technology and the ongoing industrial revolution is part of the problem, because humans tend to see themselves as "separate and superior to the rest of Nature." Humans have become "obsessed" with the idea that the masculine should dominate the feminine, the wealthy should dominate the poor, humans should dominate "nonhuman Nature," and Western cultures should rule over non-Western cultures (Devall, et al. 264).

Devall and Sessions believe that while "some leading intellectuals" in the Western culture have viewed religion is merely superstition, and yet there are religious traditions (such as Buddhism, Taoism, Native American rituals and Christianity) that embrace the idea of asking deeper spiritual questions. These faiths, the authors believe, agree with the basic principles of deep ecology. What the authors are suggesting is that humans should try to break away from seeing themselves in a narrow view as isolated human egos. Instead, it would be closer to the concept of deep ecology if humans would begin to identify first with other humans from diverse cultures - "all humans." And secondly humans should begin to see that "No one is saved until we all are saved" (265) according to Devall and Sessions. That "all" includes rain forest ecosystems, rivers, grizzly bears, and even "the tiniest microbes in the soil."

All things in the world's biosphere "have an equal right to live and blossom" and reach the highest levels they can reach, Devall and Sessions insist. This worldview also embraces the belief that there is an "overwhelming" amount of propaganda (through modern technology's advertising and marketing) and that propaganda is created to "encourage false needs and destructive desires" (265). Advertising by corporate America is designed to coax the individual into consuming more goods, which increases production. This "diverts" people away from the spiritual growth and maturity society needs in order to reach that deep ecology.

The "Basic Principles of Deep Ecology" include these eight concepts (266): a) all human and nonhuman life have an intrinsic and inherent value; b) the diversity and richness of life forms "are values in themselves"; c) aside from their "vital needs" humans have no right to exploit this richness of life forms; d) in order for nonhuman life to flourish, human life and culture must be on the decrease; e) there is a rapid "worsening" of the nonhuman world and humans are causing this worsening; f) new policies must be put forward to alter the "economic, technological, and ideological structure" of how humans live and act; g) instead of trying to achieve a higher standard of living, humans need to change ideologically and appreciate a "life quality"; and h) individuals who embrace the previous seven principles are obligated to implement the changes in society that are needed.

In this essay, Naess and Sessions go into greater detail on each of the principles, which are too involved to incorporate in this research; however, it is worth noting that the essay is from a chapter in a book published in 1985, and what they say about the worsening of the condition of the plant and its nonhuman species is way out of date. To wit, things are far worse than they were twenty-two years ago. For example, they quote from the 1984 United Nations' "State of the World Population" report, mentioning that high population growth rates in many developing countries has diminished the quality of life "for many millions of people" (267). Looking at the latest (2006-2007) United Nations reports (compiled by over 125 scientists from the international scientific community), those numbers pale in comparison.

SOCIAL ECOLOGY / MURRAY BOOKCHIN: The other side of the coin when it comes to deep ecology is the sometimes very cynical worldview of Murray Bookchin. This writer - albeit his leadership among Greens and his intelligent assessment of the need for direct action in the years past - condemns the ideas of deep ecology as "spiritual vagaries" and "sutras" (Bookchin 236). He calls the approach of Naess et al. "eco-babble." Social ecology to Bookchin follows along the lines of a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity of Fox news; that is to say, rather than putting forward thoughtful solutions, Bookchin attacks what has been put forward by other thinkers. His essay reminds me of the recent presidential elections; the candidates spend much of their campaign money on ads attacking the competition rather than putting forward anything about them that would indicate visionary ideas.

Ironically, though he attacks deep ecology, the late Bookchin was himself known as a fiery advocate for ecological action, but he distances himself from the spiritual aspect of conservation and the idea of human oneness with all living species. Bookchin, a libertarian, calls deep ecology "first-world arrogance" and "yuppie nihilism" (236) - and he insists that social ecology embraces feminine radicalism and "anti-imperialist movements." In other words, direct action in the streets (the way radical "greens" take violent action at WTO conferences and wherever globalization forums are being set by corporations) is preferable to spiritual and intellectual underpinnings and approaches to solving ecological problems.

In the somewhat jaded view of Bookchin, the deep ecology people are merely delving in "superstition" and in a "cosmic arrangement of beings frozen in a moment of eternity to be abjectly revered..." (236). Bookchin's social ecology eschews the "crude concerns of deep ecology"; and instead of the "mystical" and "metaphorical" approach to preservation of the planet and its species, Bookchin embraces citizen initiatives and "neighborhood assemblies." It seems silly for those who don't approach environmental problems exactly the same way to be so brutally harsh on each other; while Bookchin obviously sees the need for change as much as the deep ecologists do, he prefers not only a course of more direct action, but a strategy of attack against those who don't share his worldview.

BARRY COMMONER, MICHAEL COOR, and PAUL J. STAMLER:

Population in itself Does Not Cause Increased Pollution" is an essay that initially posits a rational viewpoint about the problems that cause pollution; it isn't enough to simply blame overpopulation, according to the Commoner essay, but rather it is more sensible to look at the impact of technological changes. The environmental impact of technology - "per unit of production" (Commoner, 319) - is the key, in Commoner's view, to understanding pollution. Granted, this article was written in 1971, but the tone of the article suggests more than just a series of opinions and empirical data with reference to why pollution has increased so dramatically. It suggests that rational explanations are more valuable than fear-related estimates of doom and gloom for the planet. Even a "stable population" is going to cause pollution problems, the article asserts, simply because technology is having a more profound impact on the planet than ever before. And as a corollary to that view, which I write as at this very moment tens of thousands of commuters pull into gasoline stations across America to fill their SUVs, the tone and theme of Commoner's article is of more value than the substance of the article. I agree that a rational, careful, thoughtful approach should be taken before any "expert" or "scientist" puts forth an absolute theory on the causes of our problems.

CHING LAI CHENG: The arguments of Ching make a lot of sense to me because we have witnessed the "free market" in our capitalistic system create a condition where the rich get wealthier and more powerful while the poor are shoved aside, asked to accept a minimum wage that is well below subsistence level, and the quality of life deteriorates for everyone. On page 328 Ching quotes from John Arthur and William H. Shaw: The "market mechanism" does not and cannot provide "a decent urban environment, pollution-free air, public transportation" and parks, they write. That is because profit rules over quality of life. This is not to suggest that I am in favor of a kind of socialism that spreads the wealth evenly, but I do believe that an adjustment to the present capitalistic system in America would be welcome. But any suggestion of change is resisted strongly in the media and in political circles. An example of the resistance to those needed changes comes whenever a person begins to talk about a national health care system. Right away, those opposed to national healthcare call it "socialized medicine" and bring images of communism into the discussion. The movie "Sicko" has brought out the need for national healthcare of some kind. But the movie has also brought up same argument against "socialized medicine."

Meanwhile, Ching writes that "efficiency" (in capitalistic market production) cannot be rationalized without consideration of "distributive justice." In other words, bigger and better doesn't translate into fairness for all. And another way to approach that concept is that just because the free enterprise system can produce bigger, more comfortable and faster cars - and in the process make investors in the corporations that manufacture those cars wealthier - doesn't mean the benefits from ownership of those cars is a good thing. The greenhouse gases produced by those faster cars has a negative effective on all people living in that society, especially the very poor, as they are not able to escape the ravages of more intense storms (like Katrina) and the rising oceans that result from the greenhouse gases (i.e., climate change).

But every time a piece of legislation is introduced in Congress which would mandate that the auto industry in the U.S. produce cars that get far better mileage, the lobbyists for the auto industry and the oil (gasoline) industry go to work and shoot down the legislation before it has a chance to pass. Forcing change on the car manufacturers would ring of socialism and of government control of the free market, the argument goes, and so Americans continue to choke on smog and the ill effects of global warming.

Ching talks on page 328 about a very important point brought up in this class. And that is "over-advertising" (which supposedly stimulates the "consumption of goods"), which in this paper I will call "manipulative" advertising, in solidarity with the instructor. The lies, distortions, and basic con jobs that are part of today's television, movie, magazine and Internet advertising campaigns should be attacked with logic and facts by legislators and other leaders. Much of the advertising on television today is morally disgusting; but while there is no way to really stop it, people in positions of influence should condemn it. The materialistic attitudes in America, unfortunately, are here to stay. But educating young people in schools, churches, and other social venues is more and more necessary. Many millions of young people today are addicted to electronic games (X-Boxes, Nintendo, etc.), cell phones, text messaging, emails, movies and other technologies. While they are certainly influenced by advertising perhaps more than any previous generation, at the same time they seem to have more autonomy from their parents than any previous generation as well. Rather than legislate what advertising should be acceptable for the mass marketing of goods and technologies, leaders should encourage parents to teach their children about the natural world, and share values with them that transcend their immediate desire for fun and games.