Human Impact: the Ethics of I=PAT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol. 14: 11–18, 2014 ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS Printed December 2014 doi: 10.3354/esep00151 Ethics Sci Environ Polit Published online October 27 Contribution to the Theme Section ‘The ethics of human impacts and the future of the earth's ecosystems’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS AS I SEE IT Human impact: the ethics of I=PAT Paul R. Ehrlich* Stanford University, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford, California 94305, USA ABSTRACT: Global change, driven by increasing levels of human population, growing consump- tion by the rich, and poor choices of technologies and social arrangements to supply that con- sumption, have generated a suite of environmental problems that threaten civilization. This in turn has brought to the fore a daunting array of ethical issues that, sadly, are not being widely addressed. I sample some of these and discuss them in a way that hopefully will generate some of the needed discourse. KEY WORDS: Population · Consumption · Affluence · Technology · Cultural evolution · Climate · Extinction INTRODUCTION support systems, devastation of the oceans, growing economic inequity, human-rights abuses, increasing The I=PAT equation subsumes a vast diversity of hunger, toxification of the planet, declining re - ethical issues because it allows insights into the ‘per- sources, a looming threat of resource wars (especially fect storm’ of environmental problems now facing over oil, gas, and fresh water), a deteriorating epi- humanity. The equation reflects the truism that the demiological environment that enlarges the proba- impact (I) of a human society on its environment can bility of unprecedented pandemics (Pauly & Watson be viewed as the product of its population size (P), its 2003, Ehrlich & Ehrlich 2013), and persistent racial, level of affluence (A) as measured by its per-capita gender, and religious prejudices that make the envi- consumption, and ‘technology’ (T), a factor consider- ronmental problems more difficult to solve. This ing not only the technologies used to service the con- means, as I hope to show, that ethical considerations sumption (e.g. bikes vs. automobiles), but also the involve not just how we treat our life-support sys- political, social, and economic arrangements (such as tems, but how we treat other people directly and how environmentally malign subsidies) involved. But we treat people and other organisms through our many complexities lie buried in that nexus. The 3 fac- impacts on the environment. tors, for instance, are not independent of one an - other; for more than 40 yr we have known that their interactions are usually nonlinear and connected to WHAT ARE ETHICS? some of the most serious social dilemmas confronting humanity (Ehrlich & Holdren 1971). This results in Ethics, of course, are standards of behavior agreed many difficult ethical issues arising in resolving the upon by human groups; no other organisms can have unprecedented problems that constitute the human ethics because they lack the language with syntax predicament. required to generate discussions and produce such That predicament includes the interrelated crises agreement. Different groups obviously can agree to of overpopulation, wasteful consumption, increasing different ethics, as, for instance, the difference be - climate disruption leading to rapidly weakening life- tween Quaker religious ethics and Nazi SS ethics © The author 2014. Open Access under Creative Commons by *Corresponding author: [email protected] Attribution Licence. Use, distribution and reproduction are un - restricted. Authors and original publication must be credited. Publisher: Inter-Research · www.int-res.com 12 Ethics Sci Environ Polit 14: 11–18, 2014 shows so clearly. It would be wonderful to have a Do ecoethics come naturally to Homo sapiens? framework that would guide us in environmental decision making, to let us always be able to judge the We are small-group animals, both genetically and ethical trade-off we inevitably face. But sadly a satis- culturally accustomed over several hundred thou- factory framework remains elusive — indeed, I sus- sand years to dealing with roughly 50 to 150 other pect one is unobtainable. In this essay, I will assume individuals (Ehrlich 2000). Furthermore, human a basically consequentialist position, dealing with beings have evolved wonderful mechanisms for ob- issues, such as the results of commercial hunting of serving and reacting to sudden changes, in part by elephants, without reference to some of the detailed mentally holding the environmental background questions philosophers have explored in the area constant to make the changes stand out. But individ- (McNaughton & Rawling 1991, 1992). Rule- or duty- uals are not so well equipped to perceive changes in based (‘deontological’) ethics always leaves my prag- that background, such as the gradual accumulation matic self pondering the source of the obligations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic compounds in and duties postulated by Kant and others, even their environments. A rock hurtling toward one’s though my intuitions and (I hope) common sense fre- head is immediately translated into an existential quently push me in a deontological direction, as in threat; words and charts about rising GHG concen- the Quaker vs. SS case. trations are not. I will not partake in the disputes over the ‘intrinsic’ Rapid cultural evolution is required if Homo sapi- value of nature (Rolston 1994, Minteer 2012), since all ens is to transition successfully away from having a values are human-assigned, including intrinsic ones. gigantic society with an economic system based on I will take the viewpoint of the majority of environ- perpetual growth, teetering on global collapse (Ehr - mental scientists who fear catastrophic consequences lich & Ehrlich 2013). Humanity must rapidly and suc- from the roughly business-as-usual course society is cessfully evolve norms and institutions producing now on. This is a fear shared by many non-scientists, proper responses to difficult-to-picture threats. It including many religious people who may have a must also evolve what I will call ‘foresight intelli- more deontological approach than I do and are con- gence’: systematically looking toward the future and cerned with humanity wrecking ‘God’s creation’. For acting on what is foreseen. That theoretically could instance, Episcopal priest Sally Grover Bingham con- lead to a revitalized society that provides everyone siders climate disruption today’s most pressing moral with a reasonable quality of life (Ehrlich & Ehrlich issue (Fahys 2013). Furthermore, although it is possi- 2009). As I have said previously, a ‘quasi-religious ble to find some notable exceptions (e.g. Potter & movement, one concerned with the need to change Whitehouse 1998, Potter 1999, Whitehouse 1999), the values that now govern much of human activity, what is generally referred to as ‘bioethics’ unfortu- is essential to the persistence of our civilization.’ nately does not provide much of an ethical base for (Ehrlich 1986, p. 17). I hope that the Millennium considering the thorny human− nature relationships Alliance for Humanity and Biosphere (http://mahb. embedded in the I=PAT equation (Holdren & Ehrlich stanford. edu) might be the start of such a movement, 1974, Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981). helping to bring civil society together for a coordi- The rapid worsening of the human predicament nated effort to guide cultural evolution. means that applied ethical issues with a significant I=PAT connection — what I have called ‘ecoethics’ (Ehrlich 2009) — must be dealt with without waiting A sampling of ethical issues for the theoretical issues of interest to professional ethicists to be resolved (if they ever will be). Thus, There are so many ethical issues involved with the practical ethics of decisions on whether or not to I=PAT that I can only sample a few to illustrate their go to war over (say) oil supplies have profound envi- seriousness and variety. Some are very broad. Is it ronmental consequences. Furthermore, all human ethical to ignore the plight of the poor who often are relations, including those involved in international those earliest and most severely affected by environ- disputes, seem bound to be stressed by the escalating mental degradation? Is it ethical to ignore the environmental changes civilization is facing. That interests of future generations, who are likely to suffer implies that most of applied (or practical) ethics — much more than the present generation? Or, in more agreed-upon values that involve notions of whether detail, is it ethical for mainstream media outlets to actual behaviors are right or wrong (Singer 1993, largely ignore the predicament? Considering the Jamieson 2008) — will need to evolve. scientific consensus (National Academy of Sciences Ehrlich: Ethical issues associated with I=PAT 13 USA 1993, Union of Concerned Scientists 1993, Bar- tions will be much richer than today’s. But the whole nosky et al. 2013), is it even ethical for scientists writ- question of discount rates in cost−benefit analyses ing about solutions to the predicament not to point out under circumstances of high uncertainty and when that among the rich (including those in de veloping there is a zero-infinity problem (Gillroy 2001) (a countries), perhaps the most environmentally useful small chance of an event, but a catastrophe if it step they can take is to have an absolute maximum of occurs) has been brought into focus by Weitzman 2 children (barring a multiple birth at a second preg- (2009),