EOLSS-Contribution; B. Sitter-Liver
1. The state of affairs
Sustainable development has become a trendy maxim in political debates as well as in scientific and scholarly discussion. Yet sustainability seems to drift away the more the expression becomes familiar with the general public. World population is growing, energy consumption raises, fresh water is getting rarer, traffic infrastructures are spreading, greenhouse effect and climate changes are becoming ever more obvious. Although the Brundtland-Report (1987) pleaded for equal consideration of social, ecological, and economic aspects when striving after sustainability,the latter usually prevails when the concurrence of these aspects produces tension.
Today the world-wide credo of indispensable economic growth and the need of competition as well as the narrowly interpreted neoliberal dogma oppose any initiative to cut down the market race and to consider the possible worth and function of moderation and modesty. The Brundtland-Report, an outcome of political compromise, stopped halfways; it remained grounded in an anthropocentric view of the world, without questioning the life-sustaining capacity of western industrialised and scientifico-technological culture. Its central concept: sustainable development is in fact an oxymoron: In a finite system like our planet unhindered growth cannot possibly be life- sustaining (Glasser 1995, 139). As Arne Naess bluntly put it, development focussing the human interests usually refers to ”something like an increase in Gross National Product, not an increase in the quality of life” (Naess, 1995, 464). And, to be sure, not a promotion of nonhuman life for its own sake. In short, we have heard many good lessons about what to do in order to promote life-sustaining conditions on earth, but we have not put into practice what we know would be needed. The examples supporting this contention may be found on the personal, national, inter- as well as transnational (economic) levels. Too well known, they need not be exposed (cf. however, the annual reports of the World-Watch Institute; E.U. von Weizsäcker; M. and D. Meadows/ J. Randers).
2. Changing self-consciousness
It would be unfair to overlook the many – and partly successful – efforts to amend the precarious situation of the planet, by technological devices and improvements particularly. Yet these efforts remain based on human centred interests, which are considered to be the pivot for any action with a hope of success. They flow from a conception presenting human beings as masters and owners of nature, i.e. in the traditional cartesian and baconian way, taking nonhuman nature as a complex of mere resources, the realm of human arbitrariness and wilfulness. In so far as such a conception is not adequate to the real dwelling of humans in the world, the practical measures flowing from it will necessarily miss their target, i.e. securing the conditions of flourishing and diversified life on earth for an unlimited future. It is true that ecological ethics must take the form of social ethics, that systemic perspectives, political and juridical devices must be sought for realizing the truly life supporting systems (Mertens 1996). Yet all these indispensable steps depend on a self-conception or self-consciousness and on attitudes grounded in a value and normative system which must long before have shaped the acting persons. Good and appropriate acts will flow from good, well educated, and informed individuals – an Aristotelian insight, which still holds good.
3. Deep ecology as an indispensable source of cultural change
A fundamental change in thoughts and practice: metanoia in its true an uncompromising sense, has become indispensable should natural sustainability, reaching beyond the generations that are of direct concern to us, become the true objective of our culture. It is important to avoid a current misunderstanding right from the beginning: Pleading the cause of deep ecology does in no way mean disregarding the endeavours to amend the precarious state of our globe by making use of the best of our scientific and technological competences. But it provides the necessary direction for the right use of these competences, since scientific and technological knowledge and power do not themselves contain the goals end ends they are made to serve. Civilized and refined applications of science and technology (Meyer-Abich, 1997) is a matter of culture, particularly of moral and political decisions depending on a worth-based world view. Since the world view actually guiding the mainstream of economic, political, scientific, and technological behaviour seems to lead to the destruction of life sus-taining conditions within nature (nature understood as the totality of all there is in this world), metanoia is a necessary condition of any successful effort towards a more promising future. Metanoia demands a critical analysis of our driving interests and their replacement by personal as well as social and institutional engagements for what has been traditionally called the common good. Buy beyond tradition, the community at stake is not just the ideally univer-sal ensemble of all human beings; it also encompasses all other beings with which humans share the earth, living and non-living beings (e.g. ecological entities) alike.
Historically speaking, the term ”deep ecology” was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and has become the label for a strong movement within the United States of America. However, the core ideas and the corresponding practice are far from being a USA specificity. If we look at Europe, we easily discover a rich and competent literature breathing the spirit of deep ecology, particularly since the 1980es, yet reaching back to the beginning of the 20th Century (cf. Teutsch). Moreover, we should not disregard the wisdom and teachings of former times, of religions outside the judeo-christian tradition, of the so-called primitive tribes and peoples. The spirit of deep ecology flies from a broader historical, intellectual, emo-tional, in short cultural basis than the actual mainstream economistic orientations. Thus there is a chance for deep ecology of becoming a universally shared concern and policy.
4. A sketch of the sustainable ethos
The ethos that must be spread und implanted through world-wide education should life-sustaining natural and social conditions be ensured, has been elaborated and set forth by numerous authors. What follows is a summary of what might go for a commonly shared conviction. Intuitions are important, yet there are as well stringent conclusions drawn from careful obser-vation and transparent values. Thus the ethos or ”platform” (Naess/Sessions) is deliberately open to criticism.
Human beings ought not to consider themselves the emperors of a planet that is but here to serve them. They are living in a world characterized by togetherness of all that dwell therein. Nature – natura naturans – is their common source, natural history and evolution their common path to existence and development. Sharing thus a fundamental destiny with all beings in the world, and being able to reflect such essential equality, human beings ought to acknowledge for all beings, prima face, the same fundamental right to exist.
Since it is not possible for any living being to exist without limiting, endangering and extinguishing the life of other living beings, nor without having any limiting and destructive effects on non-living entities, the acknowledgement of an equal right to exist must lead to discretion, modesty, and protection. No individual, no species has the right to blindly maximize its profits and goods by making unlimited use of resources, leaving the burden to other individuals or species. The principle of fairness whose concept and recognition testifies the particular position human beings hold in this world, and is a pertinent expression of their special dignity, opposes such a practice.
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive; it must be reduced. Striving after an ever higher standard of living is not compatible with sustainability, neither is the ideology proposing the necessity of constant economic and Gross National Product growth. Since there is inequity between more and less industrially and technologically developed countries; and while a satisfying quality of life of the latter depends on economic growth; the countries with high capital, industrial and scientifico-technological advantages have to cut down their expectations and consumption in order to allow the bettering of life conditions for their underpriviledged fellow human beings.
Whatever exists on this earth has its original being and significance independent of human interests, goals, and evaluation. It is not just here to serve human whim, but deploys its proper development particularly if it is a living being. As such, it holds an inherent (intrinsic) value to be discovered and expressed, but certainly not created by the rational human being. Acknowledgement of such inherent values implies for the moral being the duty to respect and protect its holder. In consequence, humans ought to reduce and refine their interference with such subjects of inherent value or, wherever possible, simply to refrain from it.
Part of a sustainable ethos will be sensitivity and empathy with respect to the beauty, the needs, the capability of feeling pleasure and pain of our fellow beings, and in consequence compassion with regard to their actual state and perspectives.
Careful investigation of the properties and the self-relating significance of what we encounter will go along with endeavours to secure the environment our fellow beings need in order to fully deploy their own being-in-the-world. Our attitude ought to be astonishment and admiration, when we are faced with the richness and the dignity of living beings and systems of nature. Deep respect will ensue, and being aware of our capability to act as constructive, enriching, and enhancing as well as destructive and destroying subjects in the world, we shall feel the obligation of realizing what we are best suited to, i.e. bringing culture into this world. Which means bringing about the best possible conditions for a fair and beautiful and thus truly satisfying display of nature’s riches – culture being part of it.
5. A final word concerning practicability
We are well aware that the sketch of a sustainable ethos is a very general one, and that many difficulties will raise as soon as we try to put it into practice. But we should not forget that an ethos is but a base from which to start; it provides the general direction for our actions without predetermining in detail the maxims we shall have to follow when tackling concrete situations. The ethos is a permanent challenge; it is but too easy to criticize it by denouncing its generality. The task of moral standards and ethical reflection is, of course, to examine and legitimate or criticize what is the case; but its higher function consists in encouraging us and leading us to better insights followed by a moral practice that goes beyond what has been established and accepted (c.f. Mackie 1981, 133f.) Moral development, too, is part of the richness and the beauty within nature. It is our unique privilege to make it flourish.
Literature
- Glasser, H. (1995): Deep Ecology Clarified. A Few Fallacies and Misconceptions. In: The Trumpeter 12, 1995, Vol. 3, 138-142.
- Mackie, J. L. (1981): Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong. New York etc. (Penguin Books).
- Meadows, D. H. /Meadows, D. L. / Randers, J. (1992): Beyond the Limits. Confronting Glo-bal Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, Vermont.
- Mertens, G. (1996): Mensch und Natur. In: Honnefelder, L. / Krieger. L. (Hg.): Philosophische Propädeutik. Bd. 2: Ethik. Paderborn etc., 267-326.
- Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1984): Wege zum Frieden mit der Natur. Praktische Naturphilosophie für die Umweltpolitik. München.
- Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1997): Praktische Naturphilosophie. Erinnerung an einen vergessenen Traum. München.
- Naess, A. (1993): Deep Ecology for the Twenty-Second Century. In: Sessions, G. (ed.) (1995), 463-465.
- Naess, A. and Sessions, G. (1984): Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement. In: Drengson, A. and Inoue, Y. (eds.) (1995): The Deep Ecology Movement. An Introductionary Anthology. Berkely, California, 49-53.
- Sessions, G. (ed.) (1995): Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism. Boston. London.
- Sitter-Liver, B. (1996): Natur als Grundlage universaler Ethik. In: Natur- und Technikbegriffe, hg. v. K. Gloy. Bonn, 234-265.
- Sitter-Liver, B. (2000): Tiefenökologie: Kontrapunkt im aktuellen Kulturgeschehen. In: Natur und Kultur 1/1 2000, 70 – 88.
- Teutsch, G. M. (1995): Die ”Würde der Kreatur”. Erläuterungen zu einem neuen Verfassungs-begriff am Beispiel des Tiers. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien.
- Weizsäcker, E. U. von (31992): Erdpolitik. Ökologische Realpolitik an der Schwelle zum Jahr-hundert der Umwelt. Darmstadt.