In his play Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy, George Bernard Shaw via the devil asks the hero Don Juan a question “What is the use of knowing?
To this Don Juan replies “Why, to be able to choose the line of greatest advantage instead of yielding in the direction of the least resistance. Does a ship sail to its destination no better than a log drifts nowhither? The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer.
A magazine I really enjoy is the National Geographic, in a recent article on biodiversity I read that scientists have classified some 1.75 million species living on Earth and that this figure may account for only 2% of the creatures we actually share this planet with. Some estimates of the number of species on Earth put it as high as 100 million. 250 million years ago in the Permian Era 54% of all species disappeared from the face of the Earth. Scientists have identified this event as one of five great extinctions that have occurred during the life of our earth. Today our planet is once more in the grip of a great extinction but this time it is our species Homo sapiens that has set this destruction in motion. Aware of this reality humanity might be struck by its awesome responsibility, as Nature’s pilot. As we crash and tear our way through the fabric of our planet we have become a species out of control. If Shaw is correct and we don’t know what we are doing, if we have little understanding of our place on this Earth or how we interrelate to it; one could say we are drifting towards hell.
In his book “A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There” Aldo Leopold (a founding father of modern environmentalism) wrote, “An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. These are two definitions of one thing. The thing has its origin in the tendency of interdependent individuals or groups to evolve modes of co-operation.” I do not believe it is possible to explore the area of specifically environmental ethics without first considering ethics in the broader sense. For the purpose of this address I am defining ethics as: the mindful consideration of our beliefs and behaviour, fixed in a particular time and place. My core enquiry this morning is to decide whether we humans simply relate to this Earth in an unknowing independent way, or whether we inter-relate with Earth in a knowing and interdependent way. Our successful future on the Planet depends on us considering this conundrum, both logically and ideally, and concluding as Chief Seattle did in 1854 that “The earth does not belong to us…and that we belong to the earth… All things are connected like the blood, which unites one family... Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons and daughters of the earth. We did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.”
Ethics are as old as humankind. Each generation and culture will attempt to develop a ‘climate’ of ethics to best define their current network of standards and ‘norms’. Often this may prove to be a struggle as we discover differing sets of ethics that define ourselves within our “ethical climate”. In Walden, Henry David Thoreau highlights the core contradictions that face each of us as we struggle to understand our individual actions and beliefs. “The greater part of what my neighbours call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behaviour”
I suggest that this contradiction presents us with two points of view to examine. The first is that ethics are tied to a realm of religious conviction, state laws and external Gods, whose values are held in authority, beyond the reach of the individual. In this Church I don’t think we would agree with such rigid rules to define our faith. For Unitarians the idea of fixed rules and punishment is frankly beyond the pale.
The second viewpoint and one which might fit better with a Unitarians perception of ethnics. Is that ethics are natural human responses to the human condition. Each individual is struggling with his or her own personal concerns, such as life and death, good and evil, desire and happiness, and so on and so forth. Here God, laws and religious conviction have little to do with a person’s behaviour or actions. This is the world described in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
It is from these two inconsistent views I suggest environmental ethics are emerging.
Ethics as I said, are rooted to a personal time and place within an ethical climate, therefore it is hard for me to ascribe any moral judgement, right or wrong to them. At one time it was acceptable to own a slave in Ireland, such behaviour is no longer acceptable however bonded labour in India is still tolerated. One mans meat is another mans poison so to speak. Because I perceive the world from within my particular ethical climate I need to explore my ethics from a place that I understand. For me the ethical environment I live in is a Christian one. If I were writing this essay in Indonesia I believe, I would be exploring my ethics from a Muslim viewpoint. However such localisation should not alter the analysis of my argument. I merely dress my line of reasoning in a fashion I can relate to, and convey it from within my “ethical climate”. It is my intention to present a global environmental ethic that is capable of adapting to any location on Earth and still hold genuine.
In the beginning Genesis ch.1 vr.27 “God created man (and woman) in his image…God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth." However in the next line “God also said … all seed-bearing plants all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the … living creatures …I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened. God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.” I suggest humans are offered a choice. One is a world that was made for humankind to subdue and dominate, and a second where humanity are vegetarian gardeners sharing in harmony with all living creatures.
The contest between determinism and “free will” is an old one. Both are valid and consistent. Humans affect the Earth and the Earth affects humans. So with this in mind the choice we have with regard to environmental ethics is: can humanity continue to dominate and subdue Nature at our shared expense or can we coexist and work with Nature and nurture it for the benefit of all? I believe that this question is at the core of ecological ethics and is a personal question we all need to address within our ethical climate.
“The extension of ethics to… environment is… an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity” wrote Aldo Leopold when he introduced the world to the idea of the Land Ethic, Enlarging the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.... A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these "resources", but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.” This idea of a totally interconnected and interdependent world is not a new one. In 1925 the American scientist Alfred Lotka published a small but important book, Physical Biology. In it he wrote: "It is not so much the organism or the species that evolves, but the entire system, species and environment. The two are inseparable."
If we take this thinking and expand it still further to embrace our whole planet then we encounter “Gaia”. Gaia was the Greek Goddess of Earth. She is our universal Mother from whom all life comes. In his book GAIA - A new look at life on Earth James Lovelock presented to humanity the Gaia hypothesis. In it he said “that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.” Poetically Waldo Emerson echoed this theory when he “delights on this green ball which floats us through the heavens. What angels invented these splendid ornaments, these rich conveniences, this ocean of air above, this ocean of water beneath, this firmament of earth between? This zodiac of lights, this tent of dropping clouds, this striped coat of climates, this fourfold year? Beasts, fire, water, stones, and corn serve him. The field is at once his floor, his work-yard, his playground, his garden, and his bed. More servants wait on man. Than he'll take notice of."
If environmental ethics are to serve us and we are to gain some significance from this new philosophy then we need to move our ethic into action. On one hand we have an anthropocentric outlook that places humans at the centre of the world and on the other hand an eco-centric outlook that places humans interdependent within the world. Both are a valid point of view but what is wrong is our balance. We require a new relationship a new ethic to the Earth, our shared home. In 1992 the Union Of Concerned Scientists issued a stark warning to humanity. "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on both the environment and on our critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.”
Lovelock suggests that we need to see Gaia, our Mother the “Earth as a patient. “Let us forget human concerns, human rights and human suffering, and concentrate instead on our planet, which may be sick. We are a part of this earth and we cannot therefore consider our affairs in isolation.” What we urgently need is an ethic, an earth ethic that can guide our actions and our beliefs towards a sustainable and knowing future as Nature’s pilots.
To conclude I would like to present the ideas of Aldo Leopold from his essay a “land ethic. Perhaps here we can find a foundation stone on which to build our own Earth ethic and rest in the splendour of creation.
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."
Amen.
Gavin Harte
Dublin Unitarian Church 5th December 2004