Ethics for a Small Planet
In his small book, Ethics for a Finite World,
Herschel Elliot makes the case for radical
changes in the way we look at our needs of
sustenance, shelter and procreation as they
relate to a moral or ethical stance. He clearly
is not a *globalist* in the sense of envisioning
a global *nation* wherein we are all under
a single government, one that cares equally
for all races and religions. In fact he believes
that firm borders are important segregating
mechanisms for protecting one nation against
the encroachments of needy peoples of another
nation. He does not believe in an idealism
that accepts the dictum of universal equality
of all people, rejecting the words of Jefferson
that all men are created equal, endowed with
unalienable rights. He does not believe that
the very aged and ill person is deserving
of the same [free] medical care as the young
and healthy person. He believes that our
ethics must be based on the reality of finite
earth resources and the responsibility to
maintain a stasis of balance between consumption
and production of food and energy. His book
is a tantalizing essay on what our moral
or ethical attitudes should be, if we are
truly caring of the planet and the health
of the human race.
Upon reading his book, one cannot but be
forced to think what their own beliefs and
feelings are regarding what our ethics should
be. Elliot, a retired professor or philosophy
and vegetarian, lives in a remote farmhouse
in Vermont with no utility service and. water
from a spring. He seems to be a modern Thoreau.
Most of his readers will be like me, living
in a community, with utilities, running water,
electricity, cars and plenty of fast food
and meat. He sees the world through his particular
idealism and we will see it through ours.
Who is right? No one is right – there is
no such thing as *right* in this area. What
there is is human activity and the many and
varied foibles of our decisions, loves and
hates, fears, affections and obsessions.
There is no Mosaic slate that hands us our
ethical formulae – we collectively create
it as we move along, day to day, lifetime
to lifetime. Nor can we compose one that
is right for us all – forever. Elliot is
right to be deeply concerned about how we
are raping the planet of its bounty and aiming
us toward a potential slow demise of our
species and there are many among us who may
heed this warming and try, in our small ways,
to deal with it. The scientific community
certainly needs no convincing, but while
the scientific and technological folks may
do a great deal in the way of providing progress
in those fields, including that of heath
care and medicine, they are not, nor have
they ever been in control of our morals or
ethical beliefs. When Rutherford and Bohr
informed us about they atom and Einstein
informed us about the potential of energy
in small amounts of matter, few of them ceased
talking, thinking and working when it became
clear that massive harm could be done using
such concepts. Science and technology are
both morally neutral – they go where inventive
and exploitive minds take them, and devil
take the unintended consequences that may
obtain.
Elliot believes that not only should we all
denounce meat as a source of food, for the
very good reason that grains that go into
feeding meat producing animals can be more
efficiently and effectively used as a direct
human food source, he also believes that
population control is an imperative. The
planet has only so much in the way of earth-bound
resources; a planet of twenty billion humans
probably cannot support that many. Something
has to give. And I agree with him on this
point and the one about eating meat. [We
may like it but we certainly do not need
it.]
However, I do not agree that our ethics or
morals can be arranged by fiat or theories
of consumption, production, meat eating,
number of children born to each family or
health care based on statistics, etc.. Human
ethical and moral systems come about much
like blue eyes or prehensile thumbs. They
also come about through feedback with our
scientific and technological creations; who
can doubt that our movies, our cars, our
cell phones, our televisions, our computers
influence the way we look at and think about
our lives, and yet none of those systems
or inventions had any design intention of
changing our outlooks and beliefs. .
Life is far too contingently arrived at to
assign any particular event, invention, theory
or religious belief the responsibility of
creating where we are at any moment in history,
or why we are where we are. I believe this
is especially true of sociological theories
that purport to set things straight with
relatively simple formulae. The reason is
this: humans and humanity are far more complicated
than such theories can adequately address.
Humanity is like a piece of improvised music,
moving along from note to note with nary
a consciously planned next note, but with
a passion for making whatever notes may arise.
|