|
|
|
I originally wrote this article in 1991 for an ethics class at Aquinas College.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Carl Manning Introduction I have a collection of orchids, some of which are wild collected plants I purchased from nurseries. Some of these wild plants may have been removed from protected wild places by professional collectors who sell to retailers who also may not know (or care) of the origin of the plants. Others are seedlings raised from plants that are suspected to have been removed from national parks illegally. What right does man have to remove these plants for his own exploitation, or even enjoyment, outside their natural habitat? Similarly, does man (or industry) have the right to use nature (wild animals, wild places, nature) for his own exploitation? Or, does he have responsibility to use what he takes wisely and with the least impact on the natural processes he may disturb? What are the origins of environmental ethical thought? An example: Paphiopedilum sanderianum P. sanderianum, a Lady's slipper orchid with fantastically long petals (as much as 24 inches) was originally described in 1885 but subsequently lost to cultivation. In 1983, it was rediscovered in a small preserve in Sarawak. By 1985, it was shown flowering in a collection. Many orchidists in the trade believe that all the mature plants have been collected illegally from within the Sarawak preserve.1 While Hasegawa states that such unconscionable trade should not continue and that such dealers should be boycotted, he does not say who these dealers are. Thus we are left to wonder who it is that we should boycott. He acknowledges the commercial motivation to have rare species in cultivation, since they are the driving force for commercial hybridization, a practice from which he derives a large share of his income. He suggests "moderation so that we merely harvest the surplus of the wild crop without endangering its continuity." Hasegawa continues, "A government regulated trade and harvesting of the wild population would have been more effective. Perhaps they (the Sarawak government) did not realize that poaching in preserves could occur." 2 It is likely that all wild plants have been collected such that Paphiopedilum sanderianum along with other "desirable" orchids are extinct in the wild. Demand for the plant is such that collectors are willing to pay $3,500 to $5,000 for a single mature division! The plant has been propagated from seed, but it will be 5-10 years before they mature. Thus greed must drive wealthy collectors to purchase contraband plants. A more utilitarian ethic evidently drives Hasegawa's "need" for P. sanderianum for hybridization. A new species may allow a commercial grower to offer exciting new hybrids. It might also be argued that the greater good can be served if the plants are held in cultivation and propagated. Certainly, more people are able to enjoy the plants when they are in captivity and some will even prosper by their sale and subsequent hybridization. Perhaps, with proper supervision to control the greed with which the plants were removed from their habitat, some "good" could have been served to the orchid growing community. In the above example, a single species was exploited for the good of a few. Other species of orchids may succumb simply to the pressures of habitat destruction. In South America, Epidendrum ilense is an example where six known wild plants were removed before they were destroyed by encroaching construction. Perhaps it is even important for the survival of P. sanderianum -- and others -- that it is so desirable; its survival, at least in captivity, is almost certainly assured. "Growing large populations is a form of ex situ conservation in itself." 3 Biodiversity and species extinction Other plants and animals may fare less well if they are not as immediately desirable, even exploitable. Ghillean Prance, director of the Botanical Gardens at Kew, in London, estimates that it could take four centuries to complete a list of all the plants in the Americas -- mainly due to the rich diversity of plants in the Amazon rain forest.4 Another area with a profusion of species is the ocean floor, where, in the space of a "large living room" 4 km below the surface, 798 species were recorded, 460 of which had never been described before.5 Increasingly, conservationists are saying that the measure of life on earth is biodiversity, a measure of the number of species that inhabit the planet. Biodiversity means that humanity can enjoy a large variety of crops, medicines, recreation and other products that make our life easier. The Economist issues this challenge:
On religious grounds, a proper number of species is ordained by God, with which man has no right to meddle. Other arguments that try to show moral links between animals and man tend to point to the thing they have in common: life. Or, as Peter Singer asks, "Can they suffer?" 7
There are three reasons cited for species extinction:
It is certainly true that some species will become extinct if they cannot evolve with their surroundings. The three reasons listed above, however, are changes resulting from man's interference. When humanity precipitates changes, he must be aware of the consequences and weigh the cost. A major cause of the loss of songbirds in the US is now blamed on suburban development.10 The two major threats cited were domestic predators such as cats that accompany human communities and cowbird parasitism. Cowbirds tend to congregate near human communities. It is probable that cowbirds (and humans in the end) are responsible for the precipitous decline of Kirtland's warbler. (Editor’s note 1997 – It is now estimated that Kirtland’s Warblers would have been extinct by 1975 if it were not for government authorized trapping and removal of up to 4000 cowbirds annually from the warbler’s habitat.) Cost/Benefit Others11 advocate a cost/benefit analysis. This very utilitarian environmental philosophy states that:
Proponents of this philosophy suggest that we allow the government to decide; to set the standards on what is significant or undesirable, to hide nothing, to be open with data, to do research; and to get different perspectives by input from experts and scientists. The possibility of broad scientific perspective and insight suggest that this philosophy may be workable; the government, however, is not always impartial. Politics and Science When policy is increasingly dependent on scientific research, such as the spotted owl habitat controversy in the logging of old growth forest, political considerations often overwhelm the process.12 "Scientists on the federal payroll may understandably find themselves grappling with the notion of what it means to be a public servant. Are they obligated to their agencies and politically appointed superiors--or to broader consideration of the public interest?"13 Several examples were cited by Montgomery where politics and science were at odds over the correct direction to take. The US Forest Service tended to advocate logging interests while the biologists were more environmentally concerned. We need to examine the whole picture, the logging practices, the real need for old growth timber, not just the logging interests and the economic cost. Is there economic need for logging old growth? Does the Northwest's economy depend solely on old growth logging or are there alternatives? Perhaps the government does need to decide, independent of short term logging interests. What about the rights of the timber? Of nature? Of the spotted owl? It's their home, too. Ideological origins of Environmentalism Nash suggests that the underlying foundation of environmental ethics begins with the Magna Carta in 1215. It set forth the idea that a certain segment of society possessed rights by virtue of their existence.14 In the third century, the Roman jurist, Ulpian, understood that animals possessed inherent or natural rights independent of human civilization and government.15 (Also see the chart of ethical extension and environmentalism)16 In the United States, the greatest gains in conservation came after 1860. England had gone far beyond, while the US lagged behind due to: (1) the majority of US territory was "inexhaustible" wilderness; (2) the dominant concern was for people and issues such as slavery; and (3) finally, when Americans did begin protecting nature, it was through a very anthropocentrically (humans are the measure of all value17) defined national park ideal which preserved parks for utilitarian purposes such as recreation and water and game supply.18 Darwin also had an impact -- his Origin of Species theory brought both man and nature closer to an equal level. Thoreau was one of the first to perceive that inexhaustibility was a myth; he believed in the existence of an "Oversoul" and professed a theological ecology--God held things together. He expressed: "The earth I tread on is not a dead, inert mass; it is a body, has a spirit, is organic and fluid to the influence of its spirit."19 When John Muir left home to avoid President Lincoln's call for soldiers to defend the Union, he vanished into the Canadian wilderness north of Lake Huron.
Schweitzer also extended his reverence for life ethic to nature, suggesting that humans should not needlessly harm nature, "For then he sins against life without being under the compulsion of necessity."21 Environmental activism in the last ten years seems to be grounded in a relativistic or situational ethic, in which action is determined in a case-by-case context.22 Edward Abbey believed that humans had no right to use more than a portion of the planet and that the limit had already been passed. Singer, while disapproving of violence, understood that the decision to act depended on the actor's sense of the magnitude of the evil and assessment of the consequence of the action. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an agreement between 80 governments that created, in 1973, procedures for identifying species facing extinction and restricting international trade. It was proclaimed the "Magna Carta for Wildlife" in Audubon. Plants like Paphiopedilum sanderianum are protected under CITES, but the plants are many times "laundered" in intermediate places like Hong Kong to make them "legitimate" before shipment to the US. In 1978, a species of bird became a plaintiff in court when its habitat had been severely reduced by overgrazing in Hawaii. And the bird won!23 Much of the early ethical environmental thought centers on theological and deontological bases--natural right and the rights of nature. Schwartz suggests that ethical environmentalism can be derived from Kant's duty-based ethic.24 I can agree with the earlier duty-based natural right ethics, and I find it easy to understand the reverence for life expounded by Schweitzer. I think we as humans must accept that the economy will grow and that development will continue. I also believe, however, that we must develop wisely and with the least impact on wild places. There should be serious thought given to not opening new areas such as the Alaska Wildlife refuge. While we might attempt to weigh the costs and benefits, how can we ever determine the costs of developing a wild area until we have already affected the local ecosystem, introduced alien species, or pushed desirable species to areas where they cannot survive? How can we decide if a species is valuable (favorable cost/benefit) until they are gone or severely decimated? The question still remains--does the spotted owl have more rights than a snail darter, or do we have to decide based on the relative merits of the species. Then who decides if we humans are more valuable--if we agree that God must decide, then we as humans have no right to decide which species can survive. Copyright © 1997 Carl Manning. All rights reserved. Permission is given for non-commercial use if the whole article is used and this copyright notice is included.
|
