Between the assertions of the environmental ethics movement and the discoveries of modern physics, the old Scientific Revolution conception of planet Earth as a machine has taken some major hits. New evidence, like the discovery of the effect of micro-plankton upon the water cycle testifies to the degree of complexity and interconnectedness of the processes and species that make up our biosphere. Each new discovery seems to give more strength to that old Greek idea of the planet as a whole living organism. Thus, what impacts one element of the global web reverberates throughout the rest of it.
This concept is very pertinent to the subject of water pollution in urban environments. Water is undoubtedly a public good and its use is often, like many other common goods, affected by the tragedy of the commons. When an individual or a company dumps toxins or garbage into the water, it affects the water quality of everyone else in the vicinity. And when everyone participates in this irresponsible activity, the common good is not only tainted but can be utterly destroyed. A good example is the bay at Rio de Janeiro, which has become so polluted as to be essentially a reservoir of human waste and industrial chemicals. The fact that this has not been resolved even with two major international events coming in the near future is a tragic testament to society’s inherent inertia. Bereft of any decent public campaign to improve the situation or sense of social responsibility on the part of many government officials, the situation has become worse and worse. This again, is a problem with the cultural mindset. It is hard to imagine a community would not band together in an effort to preserve something as basic as their living conditions and health. But at the same time, it is not surprising given the reluctance members of our own society have shown towards giving support to such issues within our own borders. The wastewater treatment in our city is of course to be lauded when compared with Rio de Janeiro but that is no cause to cease innovating, researching and trying to find better solutions. In fact, perhaps the example of places like Brazil should inspire us to think about our own actions.
The streets of Manhattan are after all, far from sparkling clean. There is no evidence of cancer-inducing cyanobacteria but how likely is it that all the litter and waste on our streets and in our alleys does not foster bacteria growth? And then of course there is the concrete example of the PCB pollution in the Hudson. While neither the Hudson nor the bay contains filth comparable to the Bay in Rio de Janeiro, the PCB pollution and the long delayed clean up effort demonstrates clearly that we are susceptible to many of the same problems Brazil faces. In our country, as well as theirs, companies often dispose of their waste in the most economic way possible. Usually of course, the most economic way for the company turns out to be less than optimal for the community and society at large. That is because economic costs do not take into account social costs. But in reality, economic costs usually defined more narrowly because they include only immediate costs. Long term costs such as the price of depleting supplies are often not even considered. If companies insist on focusing on economic value, the solution would be to make sure businesses somehow internalized the societal as well as economic costs of their actions. But as it seems unlikely any businesses will voluntarily take this responsibility onto themselves, the problem becomes one of how to balance the interests of society with the need to respect rights.
