Ethical issues ignored in sustainability education, research
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Just about everyone agrees that sustainability – cutting energy use, reducing carbon emissions and, in general, keeping the Earth green – is a good thing. But why do we think that? Do we support sustainability for the right reasons?
These are among the questions that Michigan State University’s Michael Nelson addresses in a paper published this month in the journal Bioscience titled “Sustainability: Virtuous or Vulgar?”
Specifically, Nelson and co-author John Vucetich of Michigan Technological University argue that the issue of ethics is a vital component in the teaching and research of sustainability, but one that is sorely lacking.
“This debate,” they write, “has almost entirely neglected a fundamental dimension of sustainability – the ethical dimension. Lack of attention to the ethical dimension of sustainability is stifling progress toward sustainability.”
Or, as Nelson puts it: “If we don’t know where we’re going, we won’t know when we get there.”
Nelson said that from the educational perspective, it’s important that all aspects of sustainability are covered.
“Everything we do sends messages to our students,” he said. “We see our students as people who will go out and do important things in this world. It’s important how we nurture that.”
The ultimate question, the authors say, is this: “Do we care about ecosystem health because ecosystems are intrinsically valuable, or do we care about ecosystem health because it serves human interests?”
While a question such as this is difficult to answer, Nelson said that “we are unlikely to achieve sustainability without knowing what it means.”
In their paper, Nelson and Vucetich consider the most widely appreciated definitions of sustainability, which indicate at least roughly that sustainability is “meeting human needs in a socially just manner without depriving ecosystems of their health.”
While the definition seems quite specific, it could mean anything from “exploit as much as desired without infringing on the future ability to exploit as much as desired” to “exploit as little as necessary to maintain a meaningful life.”
“From a single definition rises two wildly disparate views of a sustainable world,” said Vucetich. “Handling these disparate views is the inescapable ethical crisis of sustainability.”
“The crisis results from not knowing what we mean by value-laden terms like ‘ecosystem health’ and ‘human needs,’” Nelson said. “In other words, is ecosystem health defined by its ability to meet human needs only, or does ecosystem health define the limits of human need?”
Nelson is an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and the departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Philosophy. Vucetich is an assistant professor in MTU’s School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Walter Schneider says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:36 am
‘… as Nelson puts it: “If we don’t know where we’re going, we won’t know when we get there.”’
That statement is partially correct….
The last part of Michael Nelson’s statement should therefore be: “…, we will not only lack the knowledge of when we will get there, we don’t even know whether we will ever make it there.”
________________________________________________________________
Oh it is known where we are “going” and how we are going to get there.
It is no coincidence that Big Oil Mogul, Maurice Strong was chairman of the UN’s First Earth Summit in 1972, where he ushered in environmental activism and global warming and UN controlled NGOs. Later he was Chairman at Kyoto. But perhaps the most significant information is his membership on the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance.
“On July 14, Kofi Annan released Maurice Strong’s initial plan..The 95-page document, entitled Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, is a step-by-step program to implement many of the recommendations advanced by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance in its 1995 report entitled Our Global Neighborhood. The reform plan comes as no surprise. Maurice Strong was a member of the Commission on Global Governance and a lead author of its report.” http://www.iahf.com/world/un-refm.html
Despite all the evidence this is all considered a “Conspiracy Theory” with citations to our beloved Steve Connor and George Monbiot in Wiki. I can not think of a better reason to take a good hard look at the stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
They are not talking about ethics nor sustainability. They are talking about maintainability in the sense of maintaining the status quo. No more humans, no more land freed up for humans, total control by the intelligentia lefties.
Gail Combs says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:52 am
“Sustainable Development is Agenda 21 until you understand that it is not about the environment but a cover for totalitarian control of people you miss the whole point.
No I am not a “conspiracy theorists” I am one very frighten individual because I have been following the progress of this disease for over ten years….”
Gail, one does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to be a very frightened individual. You are absolute correct with respect to what “sustainability” and Agenda 21 stand for.
I wonder what proportion of individuals discussing and worrying about sustainability ever read Agenda 21. Here is the link to the full text of it: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
It is a detailed prescription for the goals and objectives of a global, totalitarian system. It is all out in the open and always was. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Those with the potential for absolute, total power to control have no need to conspire. They just do.
Just like you, I too am a very frightened individual, but, as frightening as Agenda 21 and other UN objectives and resolutions are, what frightens me most of all is how very few frightened individuals there are.
By the way, it appears that Orwell’s ‘1984’ no longer is required reading in Canadian schools. I asked many young people about the book. Extremely few know it or have even heard about it. It does not surprise me that even fewer ever heard of Agenda 21, let alone have read it.
However, how can anyone comprehend the implications and consequences of the drive to attain sustainability in all its various manifestations unless he understands its foundation, Agenda 21?
Well, I guess there’s always the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement…
drams1 says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:29 am
“I’m not terribly impressed by any of the comments.”
That’s the beauty of subjective interpretation. I thought
somemany were spot on! I sat out to copy some prior thoughts presented in earlier posts, but quickly realized I’d be referencing about half the posts of this thread. Yes, the perspectives offered differ, but correct, nonetheless.Bill Tuttle says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:50 am
Ken Smith: July 6, 2010 at 5:09 am
I was a little surprised to find that about half of them indicated that they did not want the cave to be explored. They wrote things like “leave it the way God made it” or “respect the magnificence of this wonderful natural formation and leave the rest of it alone.”
____________________________________________________________________
Bill Tuttle says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:50 am
Completely disregarding the fact that they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to view the part of the cave that they *did* see unless it had been explored. I’d trust a spelunker to leave a cave as he found it sooner than I’d trust one of those visitors to walk ten feet to a trash can to toss a gum wrapper rather than dropping it in place.
________________________________________________________________________
You are correct. Our (National Speleological Society) motto is “take nothing but photos, leave nothing but foot prints” and that is from before 1968. The climbers at my university were about to be banned from the local state recreation area because we supposedly left so much trash. Luckily one of the Profs who sometimes came with us was able to tell the committee we toted away carfuls of trash every time we visited!
The world didnt buy Marxist socialism, it was a failed model however that did not mean that the Marxist socialist model died, its adherents simply changed some terminology and changed the ‘marketing strategy’ and are now selling this new ‘product’ under a new name.
New name, old product.
Central planning and central authoritarian control using the cover of sustainability, the aim is to build a Marxist state using Marxist principles but using different words. A centrally planned economy using rationing, each according to his needs so the dogma goes and the result is the same, the state provides direction to economic activity and models are used to provide this economic model with production goals and targets. Models are used to calculate the needs of the population and statistics are used to supply products that the models suggest a unit of population requires to sustain them.
Hey presto!
A Marxist socialist state appears, rationing and queues and shortages and five year plans and state farms and an authoritarian state where corruption thrives, its back to the future and the USSR is reborn again. The USSR failed, its failure was absolute and tragic and yet the aim is to recreate that failed economic model again. The obvious end result of ‘sustainability’ is a Marxist central planned economy basing production on the ‘needs of the individual’ as dictated by the ‘needs of the state’. The very last thing humanity needs right now is rationing and central planning and yet that is what many desire, it didnt work for the USSR and it wont work for us.
Like it or not humanity is a dynamic species, we have the means to thrive and develop and evolve using technology and the desire to better ourselves and like it or not we simply must use all the resources at our disposal to grow beyond the confines of this planet or we will fail as a species. We are using a tiny fraction of the planets resources and we need to use much more to spread our species out to the stars because only that is our ultimate salvation, if we stay in the crib of earth we have no future. We must use up the gift that humanity has been given and spread our seed as quickly as we can and if that means the earth becomes one giant city then so be it.
Our ultimate home is not an eco friendly mud hut it is the whole universe and to get there we have to use up all the resources we come across.Those who are trying to hold us back are in effect trying to kill us off as a species, we either grow as fast as we can and develop the technology to get us off this tiny suffocating tenuous rock or we die. Our destiny is not to de evolve into grazing animals living as one wth nature, our destiny is to master our surroundings and spread our kind into the universe at large using technology and science and industry and based on free market capitalism.
If we stay on this little rock at the arse end of nowhere then we will go nowhere and become nothing, the only way we will leave a lasting mark on the universe is to spread out as fast as we can using all the resourses we can wrestle from wherever we can find them using whatever means we can devise. We are not sedantary plodding herbivores content to atrophy we are wolves and dynamic predators by nature and could be a stunning success if we only trusted our instincts and let go of our childish fears and fantasies. Some say our population is too high, I believe our population is far too low to sustain and breed the kind of expansion our species needs.
Just an added obvious thought, can you imagine far back in time when the first brave souls made simple boats and set for shores unknown with only hope to guide them?
Can you imagine those who stayed behind and even tried to persuede others not to risk all but to stay and rot in safety?
Who are we and who have we become and who do we wish to become given the chance? Our destiny is not to pander to our childish fancies and fears it is to grow and mature and follow our ancient mariner forebears to islands as yet undiscovered. We are at our best when reaching for the stars and at our worst when trying to hide away from reality.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:57 am
Good someone from academia is addressing this ethical dimension of climate science.
As several different people have pointed out, the underlying conflict about climate science is the conflict between “naturalists” and “humanists”. The former believe that nature and its ecosystems, unchanged by humanity, are inherently good and valuable, while the latter consider the maintenance of natural ecosystems valuable only to the extent that this insures the quality of human life. It is a philosophical difference which is not going to disappear….
____________________________________________________________________
That is just the first layer. It is what these people WANT us to think is the issue. As Cassandra and I have tried to point out the deeper issue is freedom vs serfdom.
In the middle ages the control mechanism was religion. The first son inherited the title, the second went into the military and the third went into the Church. What were the teachings?
“And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s…” Mark 12:17
or as this song put it.
Chorus:
We are the worms of the earth,
Against the lions of might.
All of our days we are tied to the land,
While they hunt and they feast and they fight.
We give our crops and our homes and our lives,
The clerics tell us this is right.
“Green” is the new religion used to enslave our minds.
Who defines “ethics” and why?
Properly, ethics is the study of the moral interaction among human beings, and is derived from man’s unique ability to adapt the world for his survival. Our ability in conceptual thinking is something lacking among plants, rocks and other animals. A system of objective ethics can be established. It should allow for property rights. (As Gail Combs quoted from somebody, if you can’t own property, you ARE property.) Conversely, a system of non-objective ethics, perhaps devised by the whims of the current ruling clique, can be established instead.
Regardless, in any society there will always be something called ethics. Its source will be reason, faith, or force. Historically, faith and force have dominated, and reason has labored to maintain any existence at all.
Now we see science, supposedly the province of reason, being used to destroy objective ethics, to destroy dissent, to destroy reason.
The anti-concept of “sustainability” subverts or prevents objective ethics, handing the moral high ground to the supreme will of the clique of the moment, to their religion of world government, and to their sacrifice of the individual to the masses.
Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to rescue objective ethics before it is again lost.
Errr…you mean this “ethics”?:
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8750846/Eco-Fascism-Fascist-Ideology-the-Green-Wing-of-the-Nazi-Party-and-Its-Historical-Antecedents-by-Peter-Staudenmaier
drams1 says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’m not terribly impressed by any of the comments.
Humankind is facing the question of how to handle it’s growing population and what version of a future Earth it wants to have. “Sustainability” is the question of how much of the recent state of the natural ecosystem can be maintained with a peaking population. It is not that the world has existed in a pristine, unchanging state, it is that the pace of change related to human intervention is increasing. This increasing pace drives the insecurity of “greenies”, and it does represent a real problem.
That’s some pretty impressive spin. You say “sustainability” has to do with “maintaining” the ecosystem against a rising population and an increasing rate of change. So, what exactly is it that we are changing that is so “bad”? Is it the fact we are adding some amount of life-giving C02 to the atmosphere, causing “dangerous” runaway plant growth? Or maybe, just maybe, that the additional C02 is adding a very slight amount of warming, which is of course beneficial to life?
What drives the insecurities of greenies in fact has nothing to do with “sustainability”, or “change”; what’s driving them is the fact that their game is being exposed now, and that’s driving them bonkers.
When I first read this, I thought to myself, “It’s not just in that field, they should teach ethics to everybody at the grade-school level.” Then I thought about it some more, and recanted. The real issue with teaching ethics is, whose ethics do you teach? A stereotypical left-wing granola-munching hippie and a stereotypical right-wing cigar-chomping business tycoon will have very different views on ethics – even down to the relative worth of the other. We can claim there are universal truths and universal ethics, but they are actually far and few between.
drams1 says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’m not terribly impressed by any of the comments.
Humankind is facing the question of how to handle it’s growing population and what version of a future Earth it wants to have. “Sustainability” is the question of how much of the recent state of the natural ecosystem can be maintained with a peaking population….
________________________________________________________________________
This is another fallacy used to sway opinions. The population increases for two reasons.
1. Politicians, at least in the USA, pay lazy teenagers to have babies. It is called welfare. One of my friends actually had his 12 year old daughter removed by Social Services and placed in an apartment occupied by an unwed mother. The judge then gave free access to the male adult on trial for statutory rape of the girl because “they were in love.” The father then found out this dude’s brother was “doing” the girl’s 10 year old sister! So much for the government suppressing population growth.
The second overlooked link to population growth is poverty. The higher the standard of living the lower the population growth. Discounting immigration the EU and the USA have lower population growth than China with its mandatory one child system. Actually the populations of the EU and the USA are shrinking that is why there is so much immigration.
The second reason is Third world countries stuck in poverty have a bulk of their population occupied in subsidence agriculture. You need children as slave labor on the farm because you do not have modern farming tools.
Therefore raising the standard of living over all, not regulation is the solution to the “population explosion”
(I have links for all this but I do not have time to dig them out)
Pops says:
July 6, 2010 at 8:00 am
Well, I guess there’s always the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Everyone is admitted, specially if qualified as “progressive bedwetters”. But, the fact is that THEY want us all to disappear, with the exception, of course, of some XXX massagists.
Reading through some of the postings it appears that many see sustainability as some kind of conspiracy theory.
This is pretty deluded. Fact: we live on one planet which we are pretty much stuck on. Fact: Much of what occurs on that planet is bound within Laws of Nature (e.g the laws of thermodynamics (try and argue that these don’t matter- difficult huh?), Fact: unless we seek to align ourselves with such Laws of Nature, we will increasingly see the results of behaving unsustainably (bio-accumulation of toxins (such as within humans), marine acidification, climate change (yes this is happening unless you prefer to believe a tiny number of sceptics many without climate science professional qualifications or robust and peer reviewed reposts to peer reviewed climate science) etc etc. Added to this biodiversity loss (in almost all ecosystems) and importantly how we undermine fundamental human needs then things will get worse not better. Fact: its time we collaborated (no this isn’t a socialist plot) to create the systems that will enable us to live comfortably within natural constraints so that not just us but future generations too can enjoy what we have enjoyed. Seems pretty clear, fair, just and ethical to me? What do you think?
Gail Combs says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:24 am
…The second reason is Third world countries stuck in poverty have a bulk of their population occupied in subsidence agriculture. You need children as slave labor on the farm because you do not have modern farming tools
Hpwever there are some exceptions to this. In Peru, south america, the 48% of the GDP is produced by small and medium enterprises, which were formed by the once “poor people”, which in the 50’s and 60’s lived in shanty towns which have become now the driving force of the economy (those shanty towns now have turned into concrete and brick three floors houses, built by themselves). Back in the 50’s and 60′ s these people were critizied by progressives for their high rate of reproduction (more that 5 children per couple), nevertheless now they are the rich ones.
The psychological difference is the following: If you lose your job in the “first world”, you go to your house and sit in your couch waiting for someone to solve your problem, be it the government or a corporation; here, you can’t just imagine that, you gotto go out and make any business. It worked! and, believe me, private initiative, capitalism works!. Of course, it is always easier the “RETURN TO YOUR MOTHER’S WOMB” but, IT IS NOT, it is a WOLF which will swallow you up!
It tells you tales, nice tales, nice and “ethical” lies, as “be good, be green”, etc. Don’t believe it!, run and get your shotgun!
S. Goldsmith says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:54 am
Well, that’s your plan. We don’t take it, it does not work, it has never worked and it won’t work. You know it, all goldsmiths knew it ☺
As someone said: I prefer the Credit Card to Party Card
Thanks Enneagram for your comment.
Do you not agree with the laws of science? Are there other laws out there only you know of that determine how we can live in a sustainable way? – If so then please let us know and if they work then a Nobel prize will, i’m sure be awarded 😉
The truth is that we have exceeded may of the limits the Earth has, however, we are able to adapt by using our intelligence to create more sustainable ways of creating wealth, improving wellbeing and enabling survival of not just our species but of many others which we should also seek to protect.
If you have a clear plan please tell us!
S. Goldsmith says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:54 am
“[…]
Reading through some of the postings it appears that many see sustainability as some kind of conspiracy theory.
This is pretty deluded. Fact: […] on. Fact: Much […]huh?), Fact: unless […] Fact: its time […] Seems pretty clear, fair, just and ethical to me? What do you think?”
You sound like Al Gore.
TomB says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:14 am
My concern, as a deeply committed environmentalist, can best be illustrated by the majority of the comments in this thread. Since AGW is a scam and is identified as being an environmentalist movement, all environmental activism is likewise called into question….
__________________________________________________________________________
And given the origin of the Environmental Movement, the UN Earth Summit 1972 and Maurice Strong, it should come under scrutiny.
However do not make the mistake many make. A healthy distrust for those who are using concern for the environment for a power grab does not automatically mean those opposed to the power grab are in favor of wholesale pillaging of the planet. Actually those using the environment for a power grab are the ones most likely to do the pillaging!
I strongly suggest a day reading up on Maurice Strong, his AZL Resources Lawsuit (arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi) his the Molten Metal Inc Swindle (Al Gore) and the UN Oil for food scam.
Where is Strong now? He is in China acting as advisor to Beijing and working for CH2M Hill, a “an employee-owned, multinational firm providing engineering, construction, operations and related services”
Can you say Hypocrite? The @ur momisugly#$# is selling out western culture and getting positioned to make a killing industrializing China… with our taxes!
Gail Combs says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:24 am
…The second reason is Third world countries stuck in poverty have a bulk of their population occupied in subsidence agriculture. You need children as slave labor on the farm because you do not have modern farming tools…
______________________________________________________
Enneagram says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:03 am
Hpwever there are some exceptions to this. In Peru, South America, the 48% of the GDP is produced by small and medium enterprises, which were formed by the once “poor people”, which in the 50′s and 60′s lived in shanty towns… Back in the 50′s and 60′ s these people were critizied by progressives for their high rate of reproduction (more that 5 children per couple), nevertheless now they are the rich ones.
______________________________________________________
The US as it was growing into prosperity also had a high rate of reproduction. This mindset does not turn around in just one generation. However as the cost of raising kids rises with your life style and with the desire to give them a good start in life (education) the number of kids per couple falls. On a farm an extra mouth that may die by the age of ten is not the burden especially when the child is bringing in net income to the family.
S. Goldsmith says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:54 am
“[…]
Reading through some of the postings it appears that many see sustainability as some kind of conspiracy theory.
This is pretty deluded. Fact: […] on. Fact: Much […]huh?), Fact: unless […] Fact: its time […] Seems pretty clear, fair, just and ethical to me? What do you think?”
_________________________________________________________________
You swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. Ready for your slave collar? If not perhaps you should READ the links or is your mind too closed?
DirkH,
I don’t care who I sound like – it is more important that what I say is correct – these facts I state cannot be challenged as untrue. Would you prefer me to because this is more convenient to the unsustainable ways we have developed our economies and how we live our lives.
Lets get away from petty squabbles and begin to face the facts and build a better world, otherwise we are doomed – no argument!