The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development (2007) 1(1) The concept of irreversibility: its use in the sustainable development and precautionary principle literatures Dr. Neil A. Manson* *Dr. Neil A. Manson is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Mississippi. Email: namanson =a= olemiss.edu (replace =a= with @) Writers on sustainable development and the Precautionary Principle frequently invoke the concept of irreversibil- ity. This paper gives a detailed analysis of that concept. Three senses of “irreversible” are distinguished: thermody- namic, medical, and economic. For each sense, an ontology (a realm of application for the term) and a normative status (whether the term is purely descriptive or partially evaluative) are identified. Then specific uses of “irreversible” in the literatures on sustainable development and the Precautionary Principle are analysed. The paper concludes with some advice on how “irreversible” should be used in the context of environmental decision-making. Key Words irreversibility; sustainability; sustainable development; the Precautionary Principle; cost-benefit analysis; thermody- namics; medicine; economics; restoration I. Introduction “idea people” as a political slogan (notice the alliteration in “compassionate conservatism”) with the content to be The term “compassionate conservatism” entered public provided later. The whole point of a political slogan is to consciousness during the 2000 U.S. presidential cam- tap into some vaguely held sentiment. Political slogans paign. It was created in response to the charge (made are not meant to be sharply defined, for sharp defini- frequently during the Reagan era, and repeated after the tions draw sharp boundaries and sharp boundaries force Republican takeover of Congress in 1994) that Repub- undecided voters out of one’s constituency. To the extent licans lacked compassion – that they just did not care that Bush and his supporters really did spell out compas- about the poor, the homeless, AIDS victims, and so on. sionate conservatism as a coherent and detailed politi- George W. Bush felt Republicans had to peel off the cal program – a policy of federal support for religious “heartless” label if he was to win. The solution urged on charitable work and other “faith-based initiatives” – the him by political advisor Marvin Olasky was for Bush term became less useful politically. The details alienated to market himself as a “compassionate conservative.” some conservatives (who saw it as a betrayal of their Olasky had been promoting the concept for years, and ideals regarding limited government) and angered most he released Compassionate Conservatism early in 2000 liberals (who saw it as violating the principle of the sepa- (Olasky 2000). Bush often used the phrase on the cam- ration of church and state). That is why the Bush cam- paign trail and after his election, and it appeared in the paign, to the extent that it could get away with doing so, titles of numerous books and articles during and after the deliberately left the term “compassionate conservatism” campaign. Yet even with Olasky’s book, it was never very vague. Those who sought the exact meaning of “compas- clear what a compassionate conservative was supposed sionate conservatism” thus fundamentally misconceived to be – this despite Bush’s assurance that he intended to the term’s role. The most important thing to know about govern as one. Much ink was spilled trying to figure out terms such as “compassionate conservatism” is not what the meaning of this new-fangled political philosophy. they mean, but who uses them as if they were meaningful This effort was largely a waste of time. As so often and what tensions their users are trying to hide. happens in politics, a catchy term was introduced by I think the term “sustainable development” is in © Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development THE CONCEPT OF IRREVERSIBILITY the same category as “compassionate conservatism” (I at least two sides. Elements of both the environmental harbour similar misgivings about the term “the Precau- advocacy community and the free-market advocacy tionary Principle” – also alliterative).1 “Sustainable devel- community agree that the environmentalist agenda is opment” was introduced and popularised as a political incompatible with a free-market economic system. Both compromise term, designed to placate both the critics also agree that the term “sustainable development” is a of environmentalism (who accuse environmentalists of cover for something nefarious. What they disagree on being opposed to progress and development) and the is just what the term disguises. Is it, as some free-market critics of unbridled economic development (who view advocates contend, merely a Trojan horse inserted into the “economic development first” mindset as the primary policy documents for the sake of the regulatory shack- cause of global environmental destruction). As a political ling of our vibrant global economy by technophobic and compromise term, vagueness and minimal content are misanthropic environmentalists? Or is it a verbal sop of its essence. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Politi- tossed to Greens by international bodies, national gov- cal compromise is sometimes noble, so if unification ernments, and multinational corporations as they con- requires blurring some edges (synthesising antitheses, tinue to permit the destruction of the global ecosystem, to use Hegelian language) then political compromise as some environmentalists contend? Either way, both terms can serve a noble purpose. But the fuzziness of sides agree that the “official meaning” of “sustainable “sustainable development” does present a real problem development” – the definition of it given in the Brundt- for a philosopher trying to contribute to the first issue land Report, say – is empty.2 of The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development – Even many of those in the middle acknowledge the an issue devoted to addressing the nature of sustainable worry that “sustainable development” lacks meaning, or development. The obvious thing for a philosopher to do that it can mean almost anything to almost anyone. Con- in a special issue about the nature of X is to explicate the sider this journal’s self-description and its call for papers concept of X. That cannot be done if X is an essentially for this first issue (private communication). The Elec- vague concept. This is not to say that philosophers can tronic Journal of Sustainable Development is described have nothing to contribute to subsequent issues of this by its editors as “a new interdisciplinary journal that will journal. They certainly can if those issues are devoted to publish peer-reviewed articles addressing policy, scien- more fruitful themes than the nonexistent “real nature” tific, economic, technical and legal issues pertaining to of sustainable development. ‘sustainable development’ (e.g. human well-being, eco- Instead, the time of environmental philosophers nomic growth, environmental quality, natural resource seeking to contribute to this journal is better spent taking use and management, environmental regulation, tech- a “ground up” approach. They should focus on concepts nological change).” By that characterisation (particularly such as irreversibility, irreplaceability, irreparability, and the “human well-being” clause), the editors will be hard- catastrophe. It is through such concepts that notions pressed to find an academic paper not about sustainable such as sustainable development and the Precautionary development. And in the call for papers, the editors say Principle are typically characterised. Doing this work this of the Brundtland Report’s canonical definition. now will put future environmental philosophers (and others; philosophy is everyone’s business!) in a much “So defined, sustainable development is, like moth- better position to provide precise technical definitions erhood and apple pie, not a concept to which many for “sustainable development” and “the Precautionary would object. It would take a perverse outlook Principle” – definitions that make these terms more than indeed to support the idea that people’s needs just slogans. A close look at the use of the term “irrevers- should not be met both now and in the future. But, ible” in the literature on sustainable development and unobjectionable as it is in principle, the concept the Precautionary Principle will illustrate the approach. is sufficiently broad to allow a large spectrum of Before taking that look, however, a few more words are various interpretations.”3 in order about the term “sustainable development”. Analytic philosophers tend to think a concept that is both unobjectionable in principle and broad enough II. Misgivings about “Sustainable to tolerate radically different interpretations is worth- Development” less at best. In this case, we are probably not alone. The proverbial man-on-the-street, when presented with this The term “sustainable development” gets attacked from description of sustainable development, will ask why 4 THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT www,ejsd.org anyone should passionately defend a concept to which defined, are used equivocally, or are covertly given nor- no one would object. mative content. Some of these terms were mentioned Bryan Norton also worries that the term “sustain- earlier (“catastrophe”, “irreparable”, “irreplaceable”), but ability” lacks clear meaning. Presumably that is why he for the remainder of the paper let us focus on