Volker, while I agree fully with your observation of the existence of the
two groups, there is in my opinion a 'gradient' of concern regarding
environmental values. Often the interpretation of facts is not in dispute,
but rather something more that is in dispute. The dispute as you mention
regards 'values' and 'feelings' about consequences impacting the two
perceived groups, whether it is an issue of ultimate or preliminary concern
(Tillich, The Courage to Be). The 'not in my back yard' sociological nemesis
of individual concerns and rights appears to resolve itself into an issue of
'allocation', that is, who should receive the benefits and who should suffer
the costs afforded by technology?

In my opinion then, the ethical dilemma that arises is not between
capitalist (Rand vrs L. Brown) types nor stereo-types, but more about a
conflict in environmental values that individuals hold seperately or
collectively (speaking here to the corporation, the collective, the commune,
the village). A dispute involving  the interpretation of facts is in itself
not a matter of ethics at all, but one of hermenuetics (theories of
interpretation and truth). Facticity is a difficult subject area to manuever
in whether discussing the meaning of texts in foreign or ancient languages
or conservation strategies, and often we - designated as the 'remote
spectator' -  fail to see the real 'inner meaning' of what the
intrepretation signifies, and we end up 'going in circles' and 'chasing each
other's tails'. 

I read Heideggers' "The Hermenuetics of Facticity" which was published in
English recently. Jim Tantillo made some reference to Heidegger (via Rorty)
in which he suggested that Heidegger was not a 'systematic philosopher', but
rather a non-analytic philosopher. Heidegger is thoroughly Kantian with a
smidgeon of Aristotles phenomological description in my opinion, and
refurbished Husserlian.  When I read his "Hermenuetics of Facticity" I began
thinking that the tract was not philosophy, but rather something else. Was
it pure fun? instead. I came to the conclusion that the tract was an
exercise in "Phenomenological Seeing" (my own interpretation) since it
offers to the reader a 'vision' of what seeing phenomenon (worlding)  is
really (without or through lenses ground fine by analysis derived from
ideas) and how the importance of the 'home' environment is in determining
who one is and what one is, that is, what is the world that one enhabits.
You see the German language is highly inflected and for instance it has a
word "Waldung" which means foresting. Do we ever see a 'foresting'? No we
see 'timbering' but not a 'foresting' so that - I hope emports the notion of
phenomomenological seeing that I am alluding to. The forest for us North
Americans is almost an artefact, or thing, or object frozen in space and
time, and we hardly ever see it as an activity, which alludes of course to
Paul Taylor's emphasis on the organism as a "teleological center of
activity" which is a bit sterile but is vastly more useful than simply as
critter since it denotes an 'limitless array of potential' often and - more
factually - concealed from seeing except in terms of 'intuition', 'love' and
'devotion.' [collectively I term these components of phenomenological seeing
as 'folly' or as the application to  'the wisdom of folly' (Erasmus)]

This led me to think about "Home Economics" by Wendell Berry. In this book
Berry comments on the use of 2,4-D (a toxic herbicide) and says something to
the effect that it is part of rural, pastoral ecology now, and it is (he
alludes) somehow part of farming way  (my paraphrase). Nature is said to be
in 'her way' when it is tended by things man likes to apply to keep her
green. Now if I had read all my 'ecosophy' and stuff on the great naturalist
philosophies, I thought that was strange. How can a poet of the hearth and
the heather, Mr. To Be Trusted Eco-philosopher call something so potentially
harmful acceptable. I think it is because (and I noted this in the "Embers
and the Stars") there is a tendency to become inurred to subtle and
invisible entities in the environment because of a failure to acknowledge
the 'inherent harm and risk' that attends to technologies, or an uncritical
acceptance of untested technologies.  I think his example beckons or calls
into view the issue of the 'inurred or blind consciousnes' of the modern
mind. Kovak in "The Embers and the Stars" alludes to the tragedy of
industrial forestry and makes no value juedgements about it except to say
that it is destructively ugly, and then goes on to say that in his backyard
the land will heal and recover all of it's grandeur (paraphasing). There is
an 'uncritical acceptance' since they are the experts, (the loggers) and
they know what is right: nature heals - just give her time. 

Really therefore the issue that makes environmental ethics a valid pursuit
today is strictly due to the impacts that technologies have on life and life
systems, both at the level of the organism and the biome. My recognition
thus is that where there is a conflict in environmental values, or where
there is a failure to acknowledge facts is due to a more serious problem,
and that is in the power (or capacity of participants) of seeing things as
they really are. Granted there are many people that do not understand the
implications of many new technologies (let alone old ones), but that should
not 'leave them off the hook' about the impacts of technologies in their
lives. One can simply argue - very effectively - that population and
consumption are the cause of all our environmental problems, but the truth
is much more complex than simply basing causality on people, their
technologies and the past. 

For example, one can simply say that the forests are being depleted in the
world and the cause of this is population and consumption. That is true, but
much of that depletion is due to imbalances in consumption. For instance the
US consumes most of the energy in the world on a per capita basis, and it is
a nation that consumes must of the wood on a per captia basis (Pulp and
Paper Institute of Canada). Canada is not far behind in the category of per
capita consumption. One example that I use often - since it is so disturbing
- is to compare the rates of personal consumption of Peruvians and citizens
in the US. The average Peruvian consumes 0.3 kg of wood per year while the
average 'American' consumes 1000 times more per year. 

Now the facts may be disputed, but the essential truth here is that the some
people use a lot more of the biosphere and (damage it) than do others.
Generalizations about the consumption patterns of nations, the impacts of
consumption, and so on, are really interpretations. And for the forest
industry the news is good - meaning that higher consumption is better for a
certain sector of the North American society since the forested regions can
enjoy a relatively high level of prosperity that would not otherwise be
enjoyed without wood being used in homes. The issue for the forest industry
therefore is not whether consumption of wood is ethical, but rather whether
it is profitable. 

In fact what Milton Friedman has indicated is true for large corporations
that exploit and deplete forests, and manage forests: "Corporations are not
ethical, their only purpose is to make money." This cannot be disputed. And
there are lots of corporations that exploit natural resources without any
conscience about the sustainability of the resource both from and ecological
and sociological perspective. These companies resort to 'green washing'
their image, not greening the environment. 

The problem is readily apparent though when the corporation is effectively
depleting and exploiting a region's natural capital and not sustaining the
systems that support it. This is apparent in the rainforests of the world,
various highly productive grasslands, etc. What arises or irrupts out of the
cycle of exploitation, depletion and dependency often is an emphasis of the
corporation on maximizing revenues, reducing costs in order to survive. This
last feature of the classic corporation operating in the frontier forests is
a last ditch attempt to survive on fewer and more expensive trees and even
grass. Often the corporation operates with  no longer term plan to sustain
the resource because it will attempt to exploit the resource to beat the
competition from doing the same thing, and it may not have the resources to
locate elsewhere. Many a great and well managed forest has succumbed to a
'leveraged buyout' or hostile takeover, and all the good management of the
previous owners (often families sharing in the form of a gift or
inter-generational trust/transfer) is wasted in a few months through a
liquidation of the inventory as it is called. 

The notion that the there is something elemental to capitalism besides
money/land, labour and intelligence is true. For instance, Lester Brown, and
others note that it is a region's "natural capital" that makes it
prosperous, not the existence of knowledge, labour and money/land alone, but
the ecosystems that provide many under-priced or un-priced commodities and
services. The traditional conception of capital is inadequate when taking a
'stocks and controls' approach since this conception fails to acknowledge
that capital is at most a current state rather than a truely prosperous
entity that provides a nearly limitless supply and service of processes and
goods. 

Natural capital is capital that continues to grow, and to replenish.
Therefore it is impossible to evaluate natural capital based on current
pricing systems. For instance how is clean water to be valued when it has no
current price? Can we sell an ice cube or ice cream to an Innuit person?
With difficulty since it only becomes valueable when it becomes scarce. So
there is no ethical consideration (regardless) in terms of the environment
when traditional methods of valuing capital are considered, that is when
resources have no price. It is the strange irony of capitalism currently
that when some thing becomes scarce that it becomes more valuable, say for
instance palladium, etc. In the past various elements had no price and
therefore were seen as waste. The basis therefore on which an ethics of the
environment can be based, moreover, must be on an agreement of the parties
about what is essential to the sustainability of natural capital, eg. the
natural endownment of the region and how that endownment can be renewed by
careful management. 

Now coal companies, and ultilities can make money with carbon credits. This
is one of the latest hot commodities that lets polluters temporarily of the
hook based on national status. Guess who gets the most credits to fight
global climate change induced by forest destruction and fossil fuel combustion? 

If in the agreement of the parties regarding allocation and use of a natural
resource, a consensus is reached (overlapping consensus), and there is full
knowledge of the consequences of an activity on the natural endowment, then
there can be progress in reaching the sustainability of the key or indicator
resources, eg. rainforests, etc. When some action or management plan is
agreed to it will only be truely ethical if is agreed that what must be done
must be done regardless. The key element(s) in an ethic of respect for the
environment must consider: (a) reversibility, (b) inter-generational
transfer, (c) other species, (d) options, (e) equity and/or (f) allocation.
Holmes Rolston highlights these key elements (among other ones) of ethical
treatment with respect to the environment in his "Environmental Ethics"
which I consider to be one of the most thorough examples of 'eco-sophy'
published. Although his philosophy is not as deep as it could be with
respect to many issues in thenatural world, at least his 'ecosophy' is
interpretable by mostly everyone. 

More work needs to done on how an ethics of the environment can be fleshed
out. For instance it is not easy for the 'uninitiated' to see how a
principle of 'un-reciprocity' as connoted by the 'intrinsic rights' or
'inherent worth' of putatively worthless species is to be viewed by some
party that sees only a 'constraint' against their business has for them, eg.
Bengal tigers, Gorillas in Zaire. You see the problem is really from a
current capitalist perspective of constraints and poor allocation. The
Gorillas that live in Zaire are extremely valuable in the meat markets and
may fetch $200 per kg US. The real desire for the Gorilla meat in
restaurants may derive from the perspective that protection of the Gorilla
means protection of the rainforest, and expelling of the displaced national
from some surrounding area. Of course the person that has trouble feeding
his or her family is going to view protection of the rainforest with concern
as they logger does here in the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest. The
saying: "Can you use the spotted owl for toilet paper?" Comes from displaced
workers or workers percieving displacement by conservationists who want to
protect all endangered rainfores species. The real solution thus is not in
the interpreation of facts at all. Most loggers that owe thousands of
dollars in a home mortgage and car loans do not care if the 'spotted owl' is
endangered and see their demise as good. That is partly why poaching in
parks in Africa is proceeding against all stated interests of the parties.
What they have ignored is the consequences that affect the dependent
community which when the park is created is now similar to a 'depleted
rainforest'. 

But perhaps a suitable analogy can be made here. The child and the parent,
their relationship, is one of un-reciprocity. The child does not 'care' for
the parent; and at the youngest age merely feeds on the parent. There is no
material care reciprocated, and this analogy of course extends to many
plants and most animals. So whe should care for the earth since it once
cared for use. One million years ago when we were Homo erectus we did not
fully use technologies and we had to hunt and gather on a seasonal basis
what was 'ready to hand' in the environment. And we cannot have evolved that
far to have become truly independent, not just yet. 

Once I had became friends with an older man who owned a woodlot. He and I
agreed on some important environmental issues such as water, etc. Then one
day when I went to speak to him about protecting a forest nearby for future
generations, he said to me quite bluntly: "As far as I am concerned they
should log the whole damn mountain. It is not anything but a pile of rock
anyway. We need to keep the sawmills running." After that he was not very
friendly with me after that...despite the reality that we each expressed and
revealed a 'gradient of values respecting the environment'. It became
apparent to me that keeping the timber supply at an all time high was a
priority in his sense of 'instrumental values'. He and I were in agreement
on many issues respecting the environment: organic farming, clean water,
etc., but it was - in his view - timber was the most important since it kept
food on the table so to speak and this was 'sacred' for him. What was sacred
to him was 'scary' for me. I am not against all logging, but only the extent
and the nature of the negative impact that it has on the 'natural endowment
of natural capital' here. 

chao,

john foster



















%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%