This week’s discussion centered around the idea of sustainability. We covered a number of instances where humans are not acting sustainably, from the huge amounts of carbon we release into the atmosphere each year, the destruction of the Brazilian Amazon to make way for cattle ranches, and the creation of oceanic dead zones. We learned all sorts of numbers about the extent of the damage, but the main theme seems clear. Despite popular environmentalist solutions like recycling and energy-efficient appliances, we are not doing enough to make our existence sustainable.
It’s clear that we cannot keep living like we are indefinitely. Desertification will lower crop yields, overfishing and acidification of the ocean will hurt another critical food source, and a warming planet will cause all sorts of other complications.
But simply decreasing our usage means slowing growth. Oil fuels our economy, and any increase in its price will continue down the supply chain to every good that needs to be transported or needs power. Decreasing fertilizer use means smaller crops and more expensive food. And telling developing nations not to take advantage of their natural resources, putting environmentalism over the fight against poverty, is a tough thing to do.
I agree with Professor Alexandratos that whatever regulations are put in place must be mandatory, not voluntary. But beyond that, they must be nuanced. Regulation must take into account the needs of the community it affects, as well as all of the possible alternatives.
During the second session of the week, we delved deeper into the discussion, beginning with a summary of Deep Ecology. I’ve been conflicted about the philosophy since I first heard of it several months ago. On the one hand, Deep Ecology proposes the sort of change that may lead to increased quality of life. I think it’s very possible that a deeper appreciation for nature and a transition to a sustainable economy based on providing for core needs might be better than the growth-based/luxury-driven one we have right now. If people have less cluttered days with more time to walk in the park and tend to their own needs rather than that of the workplace, we might better appreciate the time we have.
On the other hand, I have a hard time getting my mind around the philosophical principles of Deep Ecology. Diversity is aesthetically pleasing and healthy for a community, but I don’t see why we should value it for its own sake. Similarly, the idea that all life has inherent value is something I can’t immediately agree with. As I brought up in class, this seems to imply that every disease causing bacterium is valuable, as well as every malaria-laden mosquito. I understand that these organisms fill a vital role in their ecological niche, and that eliminating them can and does lead to great disruption in their community. But eventually we reach a new equilibrium, which may be better or worse for each participant – it seems a matter of practical concern, and I do not see where inherent value comes into the matter.
I come from a Secular Humanist background, so I might have a bit of an emotional reaction to things I perceive as “spiritual” or “supernatural”. I value humans because I can empathize with them much better than other animals, and I admit that I am an anthropocentrist – but the little I know of Deep Ecology hasn’t convinced me that that’s a bad thing. I want what’s best for humans, but it seems that our prosperity depends on the prosperity of all inhabitants of the earth. I respect and admire the methods and visions of the Deep Ecologists, but I can’t agree with their philosophy.
