John Cairns, Jr.
Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
Willing is not enough; we must do. Goethe
The genesis of this article was a roundtable given at the UUFNRV, which was subsequently published in Speculations in Science and Technology (Cairns 1995). This particular update on the original article was precipitated by an invitation to me to participate in UU week "Ethics in Action or Ethical Inaction?" at The Mountain, which will be shared with Tom Turnipseed scheduled for late February or March 1997. This workshop was cancelled, but versions of this talk have been given to several different audiences in Roanoke and in the New River Valley.
The laws of the biophysical (natural) world are non-negotiable! The phrase "respect for the interdependent web of life" as implemented suggests that humans, not natural laws, are in control. Respect, after all, is regarded as optional: notice how few drivers use turn signals these days. The aggregate/cumulative tyranny of billions of individual human decisions may make the "inherent worth and dignity of every person" a hollow phrase. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) defines sustainable development as ". . . development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Because the word development in this country is often associated with environmental damage, I prefer the term sustainable use of the planet. Sustainability requires human society to practice five system-level conditions.
The dilemma is simply stated: if population projections for the planet are correct for sometime in the next century (optimistic 9 or 10 billion, pessimistic 15 billion) and each person fully exercises individual freedom as we now interpret it, it is unlikely that the ecological component of our life support system will continue to deliver those services (maintaining the atmospheric gas balance, regenerating top soil, etc.) upon which human society depends. If owners of private property, both individuals and organizations, feel they have a right to do whatever they choose with their property (such as clearcutting old growth forests or engaging in agricultural practices that involve major losses of top soil), we will be depriving future generations of the opportunity to enjoy the amenities we now enjoy. Not stealing from our children is the essence of sustainable use of the planet! Furthermore, if our aggregate or cumulative individual actions destroy our ecological life support system, individual freedoms as we now understand them will be curtailed both by natural laws and by societal laws. In short, unrestrained exercising of individual freedoms, even though these may be perceived as having a minuscule effect per person, in the aggregate with billions of people on the planet can easily have a devastating effect (Figure 1). We must find some way to allow for the development of each individual's potential without sacrificing natural systems and, thus, the opportunity of future generations to develop their full individual potential. It is unlikely that the same opportunities will be available with 9 to 15 billion people on the planet as exist now with 5.6 billion. One should also realize that at least 1 to 2 billion of the present 5.6 billion have a standard of living that would be unacceptable to most people in the United States and other developed countries. Unfortunately, even in the United States and other developed countries, persons are living at levels that would be unacceptable to their fellow citizens. How can we address this problem, showing compassion for present occupants of the planet, future generations, and the 30 to 40 million other species with which we share the planet? Rather than focus on how many people can be packed into finite space, we should have a dialogue first on quality of life. Quality should control quantity!
It is regrettable, but not surprising that, in the period when population pressures and biotic impoverishment are arguably the worst in history, persons in the United States (and many other parts of the world) will face dramatic economic changes. In the United States, "baby boomers," whose 60s song was "na, na, na, na, na, na live for today," are facing corporate downsizing, worries about social security and health care, as well as drug and pregnancy problems with their children. The U.S. household debt has risen from below 70% disposable personal income in 1965 to over 95% in 1995. The U.S. gross domestic savings as a percentage of gross domestic product is one of the lowest in the world. In 1992, according to the Federal Reserve Board, 43% of U.S. families spent more than their income, and only 30% accumulated savings. In 1993, half of all families had less than $1,000 in net financial assets. Even for those in their late 50s, median savings are still less than $10,000 (data from Census Bureau).
This situation does not appear promising for developing compassion for future generations or for those less fortunate in other parts of the planet. Worse yet, compassion for natural systems may decrease during hard economic times, just when sustainable use of the planet is receiving some attention. Sustainable use of the planet requires that we balance compassion for living humans with compassion for future generations and compassion for our fellow species with which we share the planet (Figure 2). Clearly, compassion for one sphere will necessarily be influenced by compassion in other spheres if we are to have sustainable use of the planet (depicted by the large S in Figure 2 where all three spheres overlap). It is easy to feel compassion for a starving child or a refugee family! They are individuals with whom we feel an identity, and, in a very real sense, we are showing compassion for ourselves since we might someday be similarly afflicted. Feeling compassion for generations yet unborn, most of them unlikely to ever be seen, requires a considerable mental adjustment and is far less satisfying because one cannot see the results of one's efforts. An uncharitable person might say that considering future generations does less for the ego than helping living individuals. A tremendous leap is required to feel compassion for insects that magically appear at picnics, eat the wood in one's house, or destroy one's ornamental plants. They are not warm and cuddly and they are frequently sources of great irritation. But, as the distinguished ecologist E.. O. Wilson notes "insects and other invertebrate animals (those without backbones) are the little things that run the world" (Wilson 1987). As Wilson notes, we need invertebrates, but they don't need us. If human beings were to disappear tomorrow, the world would go on with little change. But, if the invertebrates were to disappear, Wilson doubts that the human species could last more than a few months. Most vertebrates besides ourselves (fishes, amphibians, birds, and mammals, for example) would probably crash to extinction about the same time. Next would go the bulk of the flowering plants and, with them, the physical structure of most forests and other terrestrial habitats. In a very real sense, the earth would rot. And, as dead vegetation piled up and dried out, other organisms, both plant and animal, would begin to disappear. Perhaps, compassion or sympathy are the wrong words to use here. Respect, esteem, or an acknowledgment of our dependence on the activities of other living things would be more appropriate.
At least twice weekly I look out the window of the UU fellowship and see a vastly altered ecosystem, including the portion containing our building. Some major alterations include: (1) a large area of impervious surfaces such as roofs, paved roads, parking lots, and (nearby but not visible) shopping malls; (2) vast acreages of maintained lawns that produce run off from fertilizers, that require regular mowing, and that are treated with various pesticides to remove "weeds"; (3) destruction of forests that formerly occupied the area which is now developed; (4) high energy consumption that pollutes the environment in a variety of ways; and (5) a large variety of artifacts not easily reincorporated into natural systems when their usefulness has declined. At the same time, I recall article II, section C-2.1. Principles, line 14, The inherent worth and dignity of every person, and lines 23 and 24, Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part (page 443 UU By Laws, 1994).
When I was a graduate student in the late 1940s and early 1950s, heated debates could be heard in the graduate student commons over the statement "man is a part of nature, not apart from nature." Some students felt, since we evolved along with other species, that our activities, regardless of the form they took, were "natural" and that creation of human artifacts differed only in degree from beaver dams, termite mounds, and the like. Unquestionably, many individuals today feel that human society and its technology can survive unaffected by the destruction or even total loss of natural systems. Arguably, with acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, long distance transport of persistent hazardous chemicals, and the like, no spot on Earth is free from anthropogenic activities. Plastics and other materials are found in most parts of the oceans, trash has appeared on Mount Everest (one of my former graduate students recalls hearing that at least one approach to the ascent of Mount Everest has been closed because of excessive trash), and pesticides may be found in fatty tissues of mammals and birds far distant from the point of application. Environmental degradation is accelerating for the purpose of raising the standard of living globally. Will the possibility of sustainable use of the planet remain despite this assault?
Many would agree that humans are a part of nature, but even this almost platitudinous statement does not resolve the conflict between respect for the inherent worth of each individual versus the web of life! I have recently (Cairns 1994, 1996) taken the view that humans are co- evolving with natural systems. Raven and Johnson (1986) have defined coevolution as the simultaneous development of adaptations in two or more populations, species, or other categories that interact so closely that each is a strong selective force on the other. Janzen (1984), one of the leaders in co-evolutionary theory, feels that Homo sapiens is the most co-evolutionary animal. An intimate relationship such as co-evolution definitely places humans as a part of nature rather than apart from it. But, co-evolution has a price! Most members of human society admire the beauty of the hummingbird and flower relationship or, in fact, any pollinator-plant relationship; however, they forget that the harmonious aspects of co-evolution in natural systems are often the result of harsh penalties exacted upon those individuals or components that do not respond adequately or with sufficient rapidity to alteration in other components. In short, natural forces in the form of disease, crop failure, earthquake, climate change, and a host of other selective forces can still act on human society. Thus, stating that "man is a part of nature" neither excuses human actions that degrade the environment nor does it protect human society from the consequences of ecological illiteracy! For sustainable use, we need to change culturally far more than biologically. Also, cultural evolution is far faster than biological evolution. Many middle-aged people will remember the gasoline shortages in the early 1970s when there were long lines at gas stations because the supply was curtailed by a relatively modest amount. The culture evolved almost overnight to car pooling; use of public transportation; smaller, gas- efficient cars; and a variety of other measures. This, of course, was quickly forgotten once gasoline became plentiful, but it did show the rapidity with which society can change when necessary. Biological evolution, on the other hand, takes many generations, but the changes are not as easily reversible as cultural evolutionary changes.
Given the global distribution of humans and their conversion of natural systems to agroecosystems and industrial technology (which has effects far beyond its location through gaseous emissions and other transportable items), humans affect all other species and all habitats to some degree. Assuming that human society could not eliminate all Earth's species without killing itself, then two types of co-evolution could occur with, of course, points along a gradient between them (Cairns 1994, 1996).
One type is the hostile co-evolution scenario where humans think primarily of themselves and sacrifice those species requiring consideration and compassion. This kind of co-evolution could be instituted for very "noble," if myopic, purposes, such as eliminating the habitat of the spotted owl or some other species to prolong industrial jobs, or by providing inexpensive housing on filled in wetlands, or for cutting travel time between locations by building additional highways through ecologically sensitive areas. In this co-evolutionary sequence, all the species intolerant of human activities would either ultimately disappear or become greatly impoverished in numbers. The species remaining would be those extremely resistant to, or at least tolerant of, human activities, including use of pesticides, urbanized development, agriculture, and the like. These species, characterized by extreme resistance to human management, are generally called "pests." Because they are so resistant to control and because we have eliminated or reduced those species that control them naturally, they would, in a very real sense, either compete with us for resources or be parasitic upon us (e.g., diseases). This scenario is unlikely to produce a relationship that would foster sustainable use of the planet as we now view sustainability (achieved with low cost to human society).
The other type of co-evolution is a compassionate relationship that would pay attention to the needs and requirements of other species; human behavior would be modified if practices threatened and endangered any species. Ideally, we would try to change our behavior so that robust health, rather than mere survival, is possible for other species. In short, we would esteem other species and natural systems. This scenario augers well for sustainable use of the planet. In a sense, we would be re- creating some components of the relationship that existed before humans had sufficient technology and power to drive numerous other species to extinction. This relationship existed during the period preceding the agricultural and industrial revolutions. Granted, humans did alter the environment in a variety of ways, even in those early times, but both the temporal and spatial scales of environmental damage were much smaller than they now are, and nature's resiliency permitted recovery from damage to a much greater degree. The present problem is that we feel more compassion for the 2 billion living persons who have less than $2 per day income than for future generations or for species other than our own. Sustainability requires compassion for future generations that matches compassion for living persons; compassion for other species must be factored in as well. We might even acknowledge our dependence on natural systems.
Individual organisms are characterized by a phenomenon known as homeostasis, which essentially involves a set point for various attributes. For example, the temperature of the human body is carefully controlled by a variety of mechanisms even without the assistance of clothing or air conditioners, etc., as are blood chemistry, growth rates, blood pressure, and a number of other factors checked during annual physicals. Humans do not all have the same precise set points, but they are very similar. Higher levels of biological organization, from populations through communities of organisms and ecosystems, do not have set points comparable to those of individual organisms. Odum (1996) calls this phenomenon homeorhesis; that is, the system has no set point comparable to the set points of homeostasis. Because there are no natural regulatory mechanisms to ensure set points, human society must act collectively and individually to ensure that natural systems are not destroyed or placed in serious disequilibrium; that is, we must ensure the "balance of nature." Ideally, our behavior should be conditioned to ensure robust, healthy ecosystems if we want to show compassion for other species and for future generations. But, doing so requires a level of environmental literacy in the general population far higher than it is today. Presumably, as this environmental literacy is acquired, it will enable human society to establish its own set points for natural systems, thus protecting the integrity of natural systems and permitting sustainability. However, all depends upon a redefinition of human worth and individual freedom -- a definition that is compatible with sustainable use of the planet.
Respect for the inherent worth and dignity of each individual is a meaningless concept unless adequate resources are available for the potential to become a reality. As Ehrlich et al. (1995) note, human and agricultural fertility are on a collision course and the stork is threatening to overtake the plow. A common proposal to solve the population growth problem is to increase everyone's level of affluence because the number of children per family often decreases in two or three generations. Can we believe this a reasonable solution? Evidence indicates that, in the United States, this took three generations to accomplish, at least during the big waves of immigration, and many believe that we do not now have that much time. Additionally, it is not clear that natural systems could stand, on a long-term basis, the level of affluence now enjoyed by about 1 billion people if an additional 4.6 billion people were to achieve it.
Even if we do, Vitousek et al. (1986) have shown persuasively that humans now use more than 40% of the photosynthetic energy, which is the main source of food on the planet. Some of the energy goes to pets or is used in other ways that are perceived as beneficial to humans, such as gasohol. Nevertheless, humans determine how this energy will be used. The main point is that one species out of many millions is utilizing nearly half the photosynthetic energy on the planet for its own benefit. Despite this, conditions still prevail that do not permit the worth of each individual human (let alone individuals of other species) to be expressed fully.
The pioneering ecologist E. P. Odum (1991) suggests that, in some ways, human society is parasitic upon planet Earth. Humans are historically, and presently, totally dependent upon a favorable atmosphere and climate and a number of other attributes of the planet. Odum notes that a skillful parasite does not kill its host but rather permits it to survive, ideally with only slightly impaired functional capabilities. Using this definition of not killing the host or even seriously impairing its condition, a successful parasite then would not utilize resources needed by the host for long-term survival nor would the parasite weaken the host so that its fitness is markedly reduced. Odum has a cautionary note that speaking of ourselves or of our culture as parasitic is not intended to belittle but rather to be realistic. He notes that humans are, ecologically speaking, dependent on other organisms for food and dependent on the natural environment in general for air, water, and many essential materials. As one of the reviewers of a precursor to this manuscript noted, this is "right in their face" and will be offensive to many people. The basic question is: are we dependent upon the planet and other species for our survival, and, if so, why aren't we treating it and them better so that future generations will have the amenities that we now enjoy?
This issue brings us to a developing dilemma of our time. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has been importing foodstuffs for a number of years (Brown 1995), and world-wide grain reserves are at extremely low levels. North Korea has suffered serious food shortages recently, as have other countries. If the population of the PRC begins to starve and the country possesses nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States, what would our response be to a request for supplementary food supplies if meeting the request would raise prices markedly here? Even if the battle is not between nations for an evermore scarce food supply, would we impoverish Earth's species and habitats even more to feed the needy? If we would, what does this say about our respect for the interdependent web of nature?
Of course, there are solutions to most of the world's problems. A thoughtful article by Prosterman et al. (1996) persuasively takes a position that surprisingly reasonable policy changes should enable China to feed itself. This, despite having only 0.11 hectares of fertile land for each person compared to 0.73 hectares for each U.S. citizen. Three goals for achieving this are: (1) increase productivity per hectare, (2) bring "unused" land into cultivation, and (3) slow encroachment on agricultural lands by factories, etc. It is the "unused" land goal that worries me -- surely other species are using it. Another major problem is both quality and quantity of water. In the volatile Mideast, Turkey has control of the headwaters of a major river that supplies both Iraq and Syria with water. After a dam was installed in Turkey and during the time it was being filled, very little if any water got to the countries downstream. In the United States, the Colorado River is so heavily used that very little water reaches the former river mouth in Mexico. According to Aldo Leopold, this now biologically impoverished area was once an ecological paradise. This brief section is meant to illustrate two points: (1) what individuals do in each country will have effects outside of that country and (2) there will be a very diverse array of value systems regarding respect for the individual, individual freedom, individual rights, and the like. Sustainability will only be achieved when these issues have been openly discussed and some workable compromise reached.
As a person who has, for decades, firmly embraced respect for the inherent worth and dignity of each individual and respect for the interdependent web of life, the clash in values surfaced over 20 years ago when a fellowship effort was considered to send aid to Haiti that would significantly reduce infant mortality and extend life expectancy for all age groups. Since the Haitians were then already exceeding the capability of their resource base to permit sustained use at the existing population level, sending death control technology without accompanying it with birth control technology seemed irresponsible! Ignoring the relationship between death rate and birth rate -- if the former were altered, the latter must also be altered -- was a denigration of reverence for the web of life under the guise of respecting the inherent value and worth of each individual. I challenged the merit of this effort because it responded to only a fragment of a very complex problem and might even make things worse. The challenge was followed by a vigorous, sometimes acrimonious, debate. In a recent letter, one of the people present at the debate, Whitfield Cobb, notes that he took it for granted that the need was real, the relief was appropriate, and the appeal would be answered by contributions from many of us. He also remembers my introduction of the military policy of triage -- dealing with individual battle casualties -- and stating that the same kind of policy might be adopted for dealing with groups of people suffering in their particular battle for survival. The triage concept would ignore countries such as Sweden, for whom outside help is not critical, and countries for whom help would only temporarily solve a fragment of the problem (as time has shown was the case for Haiti), but would direct limited resources to countries where help would enhance long-term sustainable use of the planet. However, Cobb says, in view of what has happened in the unfortunate country of Haiti (not, of course, all due to the death control technology), that there now appears to be considerable merit in the position I took. Another discussant stated that it was not nice to let people die and that mandatory birth control was an infringement upon individual freedom. I agreed with both statements, but what about the professed reverence for the integrity of the web of life, which surely would be further damaged if the population in Haiti grew at the rate that then seemed likely (and, as a matter of fact, it subsequently did)? The debate ended there because I had no useful suggestions to offer in resolving the seemingly incompatible beliefs. I have yet, despite having struggled for over two decades, to find a solution to this question that is satisfactory to most people.
Present human society is dependent on a life support system that is both technological and ecological. Given the present human population size and level of affluence (and I do not ignore the level of poverty in both developed and developing countries), society is heavily dependent on a technological agricultural system and, since roughly half the human population lives in cities, transportation of food to the consumers, as well as disposing of the wastes resulting from the production and consumption of the food. Humankind could not exist in its original state (hunters and gatherers) without a dramatic reduction in human population size. Nor can the population exist at present levels without the technologies that make urban life possible.
At the same time, isolation from truly natural systems has caused humanity to forget or ignore its dependence upon them. When economic development threatens a natural system, economic development nearly always wins because developers scathingly point out that jobs cannot be sacrificed for a few owls, etc.
There is, of course, evidence that human societies have perished because of over-exploitation of the environment. The area now occupied by Iraq, for example, appears to have had substantial human settlements in areas that are now thinly populated. Easter Island is a particularly persuasive case because the inhabitants severely impaired the ecosystem upon which they were dependent despite their intimate relationship with it (e.g., Diamond 1994). Since the habitat was a remote island, the residents had compelling evidence that they could not easily emigrate to new areas. Short-term needs nearly always win out, or take priority, over long-term needs, even if disaster is inevitable. A second example of an ecological penalty is "cheat grass." It is so named because it grows early and vigorously in the spring and cheats other vegetation of nutrients and moisture that it would otherwise get. Cheat grass is exotic, apparently brought to this country around the beginning of the century, and as of August 1996 was responsible for hundreds of thousands of acres of grass fires in the western states (Public Broadcasting System, WUVT, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 14, 1996) because, according to firefighters, it is almost like gasoline when it burns. This is a good example of a co- evolutionary phenomenon -- an exotic species was introduced to the detriment of indigenous species and did, in turn, adversely affect human society by causing fires that destroyed houses and other artifacts as well as causing substantial financial costs of firefighting and rehabilitation of damaged areas. In short, cheat grass is a splendid example of an ecological disequilibrium resulting from human carelessness that adversely affects humans. Another good example is the Asian clam and zebra mussel, not native to North America but which have arrived here and spread widely, adversely affecting electric power generating cooling systems and a variety of other human activities (e.g., Cairns and Bidwell 1996). For those who wish further information, two good articles on the effects of exotics on indigenous species are Vitousek (1990) and D'Antonio and Dudley (1993).
Another example of ecological disruption adversely affecting human society is the situation found by one of my former graduate students, Professor Jay Stauffer, when he was working on the fishes of Lake Malawi. Stauffer found that some species of fishes in that lake preyed upon snails that served as the intermediate host for schistisomes, which adversely affect humans. When the fisherpersons overharvested the fish species that controlled the snails, the incidence of schistosomiasis went up dramatically, possibly reaching infection rates of over 90% of the human population in some areas. The people responsible for overfishing, and thus creating this problem, felt it was their individual right to keep doing so because they had done so for years, etc. Here is a situation where some rethinking is needed with respect to the view of individual rights versus the rights of other species versus the rights of human society not to be increasingly exposed to a severe disease.
Van Rensselaer (1995) notes that humans are members of the only species that has the intellectual capacity to recognize that the extinction of humankind within the next few millennia is a distinct possibility. He also notes the set of "short-term" or "future-blindness" genes that strongly emphasizes day-to-day personal survival, material acquisition, and personal power with no attention to the remote future. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1996) analyze the anti-environmental establishment that attempts to discredit scientists who attempt to tackle such issues as population growth, desertification, food production, global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, and biodiversity loss -- in short, some of the problems most likely to affect sustainable use of the planet. A good summary of global problems can be found in Favar and Milton (1972).
The whole question of the individual versus the biosphere revolves around the concept of what benefits the individual. Change how the individual is viewed and the conflict disappears. One can proclaim compassion only for the individual and come off as caring and thoughtful, but there is an unrecognized cost --the interdependent web of life suffers as a consequence of aggregate individual demands. To human eyes, this cost is not as visible as the suffering of a fellow human. The floods in summer of 1993 on the upper portions of the Mississippi River drainage are estimated (in late July 1993) to have damaged 22,000 homes and inundated 16,000 square miles of farm land. Even the river models of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, got flash flooded and were unavailable for some time (p. 24, U.S. News and World Report, July 26, 1993). Rain water has three major exit pathways: (1) infiltration of the ground, (2) evapotransporation (return of water to the atmosphere through plain evaporation or evaporation through vegetation), and (3) runoff. If 1 and 2 are reduced, we can expect more runoff (i.e., floods). Evapotransporation has been cut by society's reduction of forests and other natural vegetation, and infiltration has decreased through the loss of the porous topsoil that acts like a sponge when water falls. In addition, highways, houses, car parks, shopping malls, etc. have created large impervious surface areas that decrease infiltration. All of this increases enormously the pulse of the runoff into rivers, but all would not have been lost had not over half the nation's wetlands been filled in. Wetlands act as shock absorbers, storing flood waters and releasing them gradually into groundwater or back into normal surface drainage. The interdependent web of life was altered to benefit a few individuals who had property on flood plains. However, this scenario did not work as well in reality as it did on paper.
In attempting to "improve" the well being of individuals, humankind has shown a mammoth disrespect for the web of life and nature has struck back. In March 1995, floods occurred in California, which has lost approximately 91% of its wetlands (National Research Council 1992). Perhaps human society would benefit from a partnership with natural systems, such as the Mississippi drainage, instead of trying to beat it into submission with concrete and steel! Can we redefine the worth of the individual as a member of a community, not only of humans but of a large number of other species? In that case, we might begin to restore some of the wetlands we have drained, the forests we have clearcut, and the water and land we have contaminated to some semblance of their predisturbance condition.
If I were asked if: (1) I respect the worth and dignity of all human beings and (2) I respect the "web of life" of which humans are a part, I would answer yes to both but not as independent affirmations. Since we cannot optimize both by reducing population size for at least a century, some flexibility is required. Additionally, we must admit that these two beliefs will be in conflict until some dynamic "steady state" is reached. Hence, any society that is pro-growth for the human population and simultaneously supports a modestly restricted access to ecological "capital" (e.g., sacrificing old growth forests, depleting quality water, plus use of land, water, and air as recipients of excessive societal wastes) is headed for conditions in which human worth and dignity will ultimately be lost or impaired. Rudi Gelsey (personal communication) notes
The inherent worth and dignity of each individual is indeed an ambiguous formulation because it assumes that we are automatically worthy and endowed with dignity. In reality, worth and dignity are only a potential inasmuch as we live up to our higher conscience, the better angels of our nature, or, in theological parlance, to our being made in the image of God. Drug dealers, pimps, mass murderers (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao), CEOs in corporations that poison the environment or grievously exploit their workers as slaves, corrupt politicians, and countless others can hardly claim that the inherent worth and dignity of each individual applies to them. Worth and dignity do not inhere unless they are honored by the way we live.
Zero population growth (ZPG) and I = PAT should, therefore, be central articles of ethical beliefs or ethos (a set of guiding beliefs). The integrity of the web of life is markedly affected by the number of individuals (P), multiplied by their level of affluence (A), multiplied by their level of technological dependence (T) (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971). In short,
Environmental impact (I) = Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T) or I = PAT
As a consequence, the individual choices that affect population size, level of affluence, and dependence on technology in the aggregate are already destroying the integrity of the web of life over much of the globe. I = PAT is really the means to initiate the resolution of the human population versus ecosystem integrity arguments brought to national attention by the first Earth Day that was held more than two decades ago. I = PAT consists of interrelated components so we should not fragment the factors affecting environmental impact. However, they can be modified individually, although their interrelated actions should always be considered.
In some cultures, women do most of the manual labor (e.g., farming, firewood gathering, carrying water, cooking, and raising children). The men go to the marketplace and bond with other men while smoking and drinking beer and, thus, do not contribute to the well being of their environment. This places a demand on limited family resources, although, arguably, conversation is preferable to destroying ecosystems. Does this form of achieving individual worth and dignity deserve societal support? In our society, does driving a high speed boat through areas occupied by manatees and fatally injuring many deserve protection as an individual freedom? Should I be able to destroy an ecosystem just because it is on my private property?
Since I dislike criticizing the wording of UU bylaws (p. 443, 1994) without providing alternatives, illustrative examples follow to initiate discussion.
(1) We acknowledge our dependence upon the life support system provided by the planet's biosphere. Acknowledgment of dependence raises the level of human accountability dramatically from merely expressing respect. Acknowledging dependence should also diminish attempts to conquer and dominate natural systems.
(2) The inherent worth and dignity of every person shall be expressed and judged in the context of sustainable use of the planet. Individual worth and dignity are meaningless words without resources and a life support system providing them. We should have no respect for expressions of individuality that threaten the integrity of ecological life support systems nor for those that consume resources needed for sustainable use of the planet (e.g., biodiversity). Respect for inherent worth and dignity must be governed by a balance of compassion for our descendants, the other species with which we share the planet, and for the natural biophysical laws that may not be violated without long-term consequences, despite the fact that they might not be immediately apparent. I have actually heard UUs state that we are the dominant species, which implies that we are the most powerful or influential species and may act imperiously or even tyrannically. Our respect for individual human worth and dignity should be tempered by the realization that there have been indigenous species inhabiting the planet for many millions of years before the arrival of Homo sapiens. Perhaps the statement on inherent worth and dignity should be rephrased to acknowledge the late arrival of our species on the planet and an acknowledgment that not only persons but other species should be accorded respect or, better yet, esteem.
Obviously, the rewording, if my suggestions are not totally ignored, will be difficult. The central issue is an open acknowledgment of dependence to replace a statement of respect for the biophysical life support system and to expand expressions of respect for human worth and dignity to individuals of other species as well. John Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, recently (Holdren 1995) summarized the situation as follows: "We're not running out of energy, but rather we're running out of environment, patience with inequity, money for sustainability, time for making a transition, and leadership to do what is required." An excellent analysis of these points is found in Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1996, pp. 94-97). Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg notes that "Nature is not benign . . . The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary program" (as quoted in Garrett 1994, p. 6). In terms of sustainability, should we see how many bodies we can pack on the planet simultaneously or should quality of life come first? This reminds me of one of the fads of the college students in the 1960s of seeing how many individuals could be packed into a telephone booth or a Volkswagen beetle. Unbelievable figures could be achieved, but the quality of life in such situations was not high. In calculating sustainability, it might be well to let quality of life control quantity of people rather than seeing how many people we can get in finite space. As Daly (1982) notes "As far as we know God is not impatient for all lives to be lived soon," or in other words, perhaps more people can live quality lives if we take the measures needed for sustainable use of the planet over a million years rather than seeing how quickly we can exploit the resources with technology now available. Quality of life should certainly be a major consideration in the development of sustainability policies.
This article has been concerned with two things: (1) the need to redefine individual worth and dignity so that it does not require damage to natural systems and (2) developing a respect for the web of life that will make sustainable long-term use of the planet a reality. Human society must scale down (by natural attrition) the global population (P). The other multipliers [affluence (A) and technology (T)] can be controlled by behavioral change. By adopting a deeper meaning of human dignity, i.e., behavior compatible with long-term sustainable use of natural systems, the inconsistencies will be less glaring. There is both a need and an opportunity for human society to go beyond simple tenets and apply them realistically, thereby broadening the sense of how everything fits together and what we must all do to solve the problems. At the very least, this will require a greatly improved environmental literacy.
In the draft of their splendid soon-to-be-published book The Alien's Guide to Life on Earth, Whit and Anne Gibbons (personal communication/draft copy) discuss the observation by an English journalist that inhabitants of the northern territory in Australia "seemed almost jubilant whenever someone was taken by a crocodile." This, in my opinion, is recognition that a human invading a crocodile's home territory must accept certain risks, which are increased dramatically by a failure to study indigenous species such as a crocodile carefully before doing so. On the other hand, the authors recall a newspaper account of a man bitten by an alligator while wading in a pond after hours at a golf course in Orlando, Florida. When the incident was reported, the alligator was killed. Shouldn't we be more accepting of the natural behavior of wild animals and more willing to share the environment with them, especially when we have destroyed much of their original environment that would have been much more to their liking than golf course ponds? As the authors note, this does not mean that we acquiesce to the idea that humans are acceptable prey for crocodiles and alligators or any other animal. However, we should not expect to venture into their environment risk free and expect them to be slaughtered because of their normal behavior, of which we are often ignorant.
In the area around the UUFNRV in Blacksburg, Virginia, there are not many animals out to eat us or even bite us. When the new fellowship building was constructed a few years ago, we cleared away what remained of the native vegetation and put in the good old American lawn. It is interesting that, when indigenous species try to recolonize this area, we make every attempt to eradicate them. My colleague Duncan Porter, a botanist, tells me that indigenous species likely to attempt recolonization locally are the black locust, silver and sugar maples, North American chickweeds, and native plantains. There are also vigorous colonization attempts by exotic species, that were either deliberately or accidentally brought to North America by humans (such as the dandelion and thistle), to colonize. This poses some interesting judgments in interpreting our respect for the interdependent web of life. Many of the exotic species, not native to North America, are clearly here to stay and many are quite resistant to human control, which is why we call them "weeds." Should we only respect the interdependent web of life when it includes species that we select and which would likely not survive, and definitely would not thrive, without considerable use of energy and time in their management? Should there be any indication of respect for the interdependent web of life on UU property? Arguably, if we don't show such respect on our own property, can we plausibly retain the respect statement among our beliefs?
Of course, allowing our property to revert to a wild state would arouse the ire of our neighbors and probably result in sanctions from the local government. However, it should be possible to install a butterfly garden and a bird sanctuary using indigenous species that might be regarded as environmental shrines to illustrate our esteem for the interdependent web of life by reestablishing small, non-threatening portions on our own property. This might be a useful exercise not only for the adults but for the younger generations as well. If UUs are to speak out on the environment, can we do so when our own property does not display at least some tokens of our respect and esteem for natural systems? I have no solutions to these issues, but think they are worth discussion and would welcome any comments from others that would help me think through some of the complex, multivariate problems discussed in this article. I like Scott Geller's (1994) actively caring model. If we truly esteem natural systems, we should move from lukewarm respect to actively caring!
I greatly appreciate the comments of Alan Heath, Arthur Snoke, Rudi Gelsey, and Karen D. Holl on an early draft of this manuscript. I am also indebted to Whitfield Cobb for the section on the Haiti situation and to Leslie Hager-Smith and Eric Smith for comments on the 1995 paper on these thoughts. The thoughts in the abstract are the result of correspondence with Peter H. Raven and Donald W. Aitken about "The Natural Step USA Program." The Cairns Foundation paid for transcribing the dictation on this manuscript. As usual, my editorial assistant Darla Donald prepared the text for electronic "publication" (my first).
Brown, L. R. 1995. Who Will Feed China? W. W. Norton & Co., New York. 163 pp.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1994. Ecological restoration: Re-examining human society's relationship with natural systems. The Abel Wolman Distinguished Lecture. Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 20 pp.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1995. Respect for the inherent worth of each individual versus the web of life: An unresolved conflict. Speculations in Science and Technology 18:294301.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1996. Determining the balance between technological and ecosystem services. Pages 13-30 in P.C. Schulze, ed. Engineering Within Ecological Constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J., Jr. and J. R. Bidwell. 1996. The modification of human society of natural systems: Discontinuities caused by the exploitation of endemic species and the introduction of exotics. Environmental Health Perspectives 104(11):2-5.
Daly, H. 1982. Review of The Ultimate Resources by Julian. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January.
D'Antonio, C. and T. L. Dudley. 1993. Alien species. Pacific Discovery (Summer):9-11.
Diamond, J. 1994. Ecological collapses of ancient civilizations: The golden age that never was. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences XVLIII(5):37-59.
Ehrlich, P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich. 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 335 pp.
Ehrlich, P. R. and J. P. Holdren. 1971. The impact of population growth. Science 171:1212-1217.
Ehrlich, P. R., A. H. Ehrlich, and G. C. Daily. 1995. The Stork and the Plow. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 364 pp.
Favar, M. T. and J. P. Milton, eds. 1972. The Careless Technology: Ecology and International Development. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 1030 pp.
Garrett, L. 1994. The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York.
Geller, E. S. 1994. The human element in integrated environmental management. Pages 5-26 in J. Cairns, Jr., T. V. Crawford, and H. Salwasser, eds., Implementing Integrated Environmental Management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Holdren, J. 1995. Lecture at Woods Hole Research Center. 11 October. As quoted in Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1996, p. 95.
Janzen, D. H. 1984. The most coevolutionary animal of them all. Crafoord Prize Lecture, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. 20 pp.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 552 pp.
Odum, E. P. 1991. Earth stewardship. Page 5 in Georgia Landscape. p. 5. School of Environmental Design, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Odum, E. P. 1996. Is there a balance of nature? Visiting Scholar Lecture, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, September 5, 1996.
Prosterman, R. L., T. Hanstad, and L. Ping. 1996. Can China feed itself? Scientific American November:90-96.
Raven, P. H. and G. B. Johnson. 1986. Biology. Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO.
Van Rensselaer, P. 1995. Global bioethics: Linking genes to ethical behavior. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 39(1):118131.
Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: Towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7-13.
Vitousek, P., P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and P. Matson. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36:368-373.
Wilson, E. O. 1987. The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biology 1(4):344-3346.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Back to The UUFNRV
Home Page