Where on the Green Road?

I’ve been reading the Dali Lama’s Ethics for the New Millennium. In general it has not been a thought provoking book. I find myself just nodding and saying, “Uh huh, okay, I agree with that.”

I was struck though by his statement on the environment. Simply and eloquently he states:

[The area in which we have special responsibilities is] … our natural environment. Again, this responsibility has less to do with questions of right or wrong that with the question of survival. The natural world is our home. It is not necessarily sacred or holy, it is simply where we live. It is therefore in our interest to look after it. This is common sense. But only recently have the size of our population and the power of science and technology grown to the point that they can have a direct impact on nature. To put it another way, until now, Mother Earth has been able to tolerate our sloppy house habits. The stage has been reached where she can no longer accept our behavior in silence. The problems caused by environmental degradation can be seen as her response to our irresponsible behavior. She is warning us that there are limits even to her tolerance. (p. 187-188)

There should be no argument on this topic. Just as family members share the same house, we all share the same planet. There is at this point no other viable biosphere.

This argument can also be phrased in several different ways. The argument for universalizability fits as well. While Dr. William Irvine elaborates on the argument in The Politics of Parenting, succinctly it is: while something that one person does does not cause any substantial harm, if many people do the same thing in aggregate those actions are significantly harmful therefore they should be prevented. The logic for protecting the environment follows so clearly for this I shall not elaborate upon it.

A third argument for “environmentalism” is an economic one. Often times given an environmentally destructive and an environmentally non-destructive way to do a task the destructive one will have less direct costs, but instead will have indirect costs born in the form of increased health care needs for the populace, reduction in drinkable water, less breathtaking views, etc. Decision makers should deliberately and consciously consider the environmental impact within their economic analysis. This should be one of the many factors considered in addition to the direct business considerations.

The environmentalism debate however expansive is just a subset of a much larger debate, that of collectivism versus individualism (or Objectivism) This is the major divide behind the Cold War, environmentalism, censorship, tax burden distribution, welfare, social security, school funding, among other ideological, sociological, and political debates.

Which one is right? Both and neither, depending on which topic we’re addressing. The pure objectivists are too individually focused on one aspect of human nature, competitiveness, while the collectivists are ignorant of the same characteristic.

Where do I stand? As William Finn put it “Here I stand in the middle of the road.”