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, whichwas subsequently published in Speculations in Science and Technology (Cairns1995). This particular update on the original article was precipitatedby an invitation to me to participate in UU week "Ethics in Actionor Ethical Inaction?" at The Mountain, which will be shared with TomTurnipseed scheduled for late February or March 1997. This workshop wascancelled, but versions of this talk have been given to severaldifferent audiences in Roanoke and in the New River Valley.
The laws of the biophysical (natural) world are non-negotiable! Thephrase "respect for the interdependent web of life" as implementedsuggests that humans, not natural laws, are in control. Respect, afterall, is regarded as optional: notice how few drivers use turn signals thesedays. The aggregate/cumulative tyranny of billions of individual humandecisions 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 theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs." Because the word development in this countryis often associated with environmental damage, I prefer the term sustainableuse of the planet. Sustainability requires human society to practice fivesystem-level conditions.
The dilemma is simply stated: if population projections for the planetare correct for sometime in the next century (optimistic 9 or 10 billion,pessimistic 15 billion) and each person fully exercises individual freedomas we now interpret it, it is unlikely that the ecological component ofour life support system will continue to deliver those services (maintainingthe atmospheric gas balance, regenerating top soil, etc.) upon which humansociety depends. If owners of private property, both individuals andorganizations,feel they have a right to do whatever they choose with their property (suchas clearcutting old growth forests or engaging in agricultural practicesthat involve major losses of top soil), we will be depriving future generationsof the opportunity to enjoy the amenities we now enjoy. Not stealing fromour children is the essence of sustainable use of the planet! Furthermore,if our aggregate or cumulative individual actions destroy our ecologicallife support system, individual freedoms as we now understand them willbe curtailed both by natural laws and by societal laws. In short, unrestrainedexercising of individual freedoms, even though these may be perceived ashaving a minuscule effect per person, in the aggregate with billions ofpeople on the planet can easily have a devastating effect
It is regrettable, but not surprising that, in the period when populationpressures and biotic impoverishment are arguably the worst in history,persons in the United States (and many other parts of the world) will facedramatic economic changes. In the United States, "baby boomers,"whose 60s song was "na, na, na, na, na, na live for today," arefacing corporate downsizing, worries about social security and health care,as well as drug and pregnancy problems with their children. The U.S. householddebt has risen from below 70% disposable personal income in 1965 to over95% in 1995. The U.S. gross domestic savings as a percentage of gross domesticproduct is one of the lowest in the world. In 1992, according to the FederalReserve Board, 43% of U.S. families spent more than their income, and only30% accumulated savings. In 1993, half of all families had less than $1,000in net financial assets. Even for those in their late 50s, median savingsare still less than $10,000 (data from Census Bureau).
This situation does not appear promising for developing compassion forfuture generations or for those less fortunate in other parts of the planet.Worse yet, compassion for natural systems may decrease during hard economictimes, just when sustainable use of the planet is receiving some attention.Sustainable use of the planet requires that we balance compassion for livinghumans with compassion for future generations and compassion for our fellowspecies with which we share the planet (Figure 2). Clearly, compassionfor one sphere will necessarily be influenced by compassion in other spheresif we are to have sustainable use of the planet (depicted by the largeS in Figure 2 where all three spheres overlap). It is easy to feel compassionfor a starving child or a refugee family! They are individuals with whomwe feel an identity, and, in a very real sense, we are showing compassionfor ourselves since we might someday be similarly afflicted. Feeling compassionfor generations yet unborn, most of them unlikely to ever be seen, requiresa considerable mental adjustment and is far less satisfying because onecannot see the results of one's efforts. An uncharitable person might saythat considering future generations does less for the ego than helpingliving individuals. A tremendous leap is required to feel compassion forinsects 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 theyare frequently sources of great irritation. But, as the distinguished ecologistE.. O. Wilson notes "insects and other invertebrate animals (thosewithout backbones) are the little things that run the world" (Wilson1987). As Wilson notes, we need invertebrates, but they don't need us.If human beings were to disappear tomorrow, the world would go on withlittle change. But, if the invertebrates were to disappear, Wilson doubtsthat the human species could last more than a few months. Most vertebratesbesides ourselves (fishes, amphibians, birds, and mammals, for example)would probably crash to extinction about the same time. Next would go thebulk of the flowering plants and, with them, the physical structure ofmost forests and other terrestrial habitats. In a very real sense, theearth would rot. And, as dead vegetation piled up and dried out, otherorganisms, both plant and animal, would begin to disappear. Perhaps, compassionor sympathy are the wrong words to use here. Respect, esteem, or anacknowledgmentof our dependence on the activities of other living things would be moreappropriate.
At least twice weekly I look out the window of the UU fellowship andsee a vastly altered ecosystem, including the portion containing our building.Some major alterations include: (1) a large area of impervious surfacessuch as roofs, paved roads, parking lots, and (nearby but not visible)shopping malls; (2) vast acreages of maintained lawns that produce runoff from fertilizers, that require regular mowing, and that are treatedwith various pesticides to remove "weeds"; (3) destruction offorests that formerly occupied the area which is now developed; (4) highenergy consumption that pollutes the environment in a variety of ways;and (5) a large variety of artifacts not easily reincorporated into naturalsystems when their usefulness has declined. At the same time, I recallarticle II, section C-2.1. Principles, line 14, The inherent worth anddignity of every person, and lines 23 and 24, Respect for the interdependentweb 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, heateddebates could be heard in the graduate student commons over the statement"man is a part of nature, not apart from nature." Some studentsfelt, since we evolved along with other species, that our activities, regardlessof the form they took, were "natural" and that creation of humanartifacts differed only in degree from beaver dams, termite mounds, andthe like. Unquestionably, many individuals today feel that human societyand its technology can survive unaffected by the destruction or even totalloss 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 othermaterials are found in most parts of the oceans, trash has appeared onMount Everest (one of my former graduate students recalls hearing thatat least one approach to the ascent of Mount Everest has been closed becauseof excessive trash), and pesticides may be found in fatty tissues of mammalsand birds far distant from the point of application. Environmental degradationis accelerating for the purpose of raising the standard of living globally.Will the possibility of sustainable use of the planet remain despite thisassault?
Many would agree that humans are a part of nature, but even this almostplatitudinous statement does not resolve the conflict between respect forthe 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 naturalsystems. Raven and Johnson (1986) have defined coevolution as the simultaneousdevelopment of adaptations in two or more populations, species, or othercategories that interact so closely that each is a strong selective forceon the other. Janzen (1984), one of the leaders in co-evolutionary theory,feels that Homo sapiens is the most co-evolutionary animal. An intimaterelationship such as co-evolution definitely places humans as a part ofnature rather than apart from it. But, co-evolution has a price! Most membersof human society admire the beauty of the hummingbird and flower relationshipor, in fact, any pollinator-plant relationship; however, they forget thatthe harmonious aspects of co-evolution in natural systems are often theresult of harsh penalties exacted upon those individuals or componentsthat do not respond adequately or with sufficient rapidity to alterationin other components. In short, natural forces in the form of disease, cropfailure, earthquake, climate change, and a host of other selective forcescan still act on human society. Thus, stating that "man is a partof nature" neither excuses human actions that degrade the environmentnor does it protect human society from the consequences of ecologicalilliteracy!For sustainable use, we need to change culturally far more than biologically.Also, cultural evolution is far faster than biological evolution. Manymiddle-aged people will remember the gasoline shortages in the early 1970swhen there were long lines at gas stations because the supply was curtailedby a relatively modest amount. The culture evolved almost overnight tocar pooling; use of public transportation; smaller, gas- efficient cars;and a variety of other measures. This, of course, was quickly forgottenonce gasoline became plentiful, but it did show the rapidity with whichsociety can change when necessary. Biological evolution, on the other hand,takes many generations, but the changes are not as easily reversible ascultural evolutionary changes.
Given the global distribution of humans and their conversion of naturalsystems to agroecosystems and industrial technology (which has effectsfar beyond its location through gaseous emissions and other transportableitems), humans affect all other species and all habitats to some degree.Assuming that human society could not eliminate all Earth's species withoutkilling 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 primarilyof themselves and sacrifice those species requiring consideration andcompassion.This kind of co-evolution could be instituted for very "noble,"if myopic, purposes, such as eliminating the habitat of the spotted owlor some other species to prolong industrial jobs, or by providing inexpensivehousing on filled in wetlands, or for cutting travel time between locationsby building additional highways through ecologically sensitive areas. Inthis co-evolutionary sequence, all the species intolerant of human activitieswould either ultimately disappear or become greatly impoverished in numbers.The species remaining would be those extremely resistant to, or at leasttolerant of, human activities, including use of pesticides, urbanizeddevelopment,agriculture, and the like. These species, characterized by extreme resistanceto human management, are generally called "pests." Because theyare so resistant to control and because we have eliminated or reduced thosespecies 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 fostersustainableuse of the planet as we now view sustainability (achieved with low costto human society).
The other type of co-evolution is a compassionate relationship thatwould pay attention to the needs and requirements of other species; humanbehavior would be modified if practices threatened and endangered any species.Ideally, we would try to change our behavior so that robust health, ratherthan mere survival, is possible for other species. In short, we would esteemother species and natural systems. This scenario augers well for sustainableuse of the planet. In a sense, we would be re- creating some componentsof the relationship that existed before humans had sufficient technologyand power to drive numerous other species to extinction. This relationshipexisted during the period preceding the agricultural and industrial revolutions.Granted, humans did alter the environment in a variety of ways, even inthose early times, but both the temporal and spatial scales of environmentaldamage were much smaller than they now are, and nature's resiliency permittedrecovery from damage to a much greater degree. The present problem is thatwe feel more compassion for the 2 billion living persons who have lessthan $2 per day income than for future generations or for species otherthan our own. Sustainability requires compassion for future generationsthat matches compassion for living persons; compassion for other speciesmust be factored in as well. We might even acknowledge our dependence onnatural 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 varietyof mechanisms even without the assistance of clothing or air conditioners,etc., as are blood chemistry, growth rates, blood pressure, and a numberof other factors checked during annual physicals. Humans do not all havethe same precise set points, but they are very similar. Higher levels ofbiological organization, from populations through communities of organismsand ecosystems, do not have set points comparable to those of individualorganisms. Odum (1996) calls this phenomenon homeorhesis; that is, thesystem has no set point comparable to the set points of homeostasis. Becausethere are no natural regulatory mechanisms to ensure set points, humansociety must act collectively and individually to ensure that natural systemsare not destroyed or placed in serious disequilibrium; that is, we mustensure the "balance of nature." Ideally, our behavior shouldbe conditioned to ensure robust, healthy ecosystems if we want to showcompassion for other species and for future generations. But, doing sorequires a level of environmental literacy in the general population farhigher than it is today. Presumably, as this environmental literacy isacquired, it will enable human society to establish its own set pointsfor natural systems, thus protecting the integrity of natural systems andpermitting sustainability. However, all depends upon a redefinition ofhuman worth and individual freedom -- a definition that is compatible withsustainable use of the planet.
Respect for the inherent worth and dignity of each individual is ameaninglessconcept unless adequate resources are available for the potential to becomea reality. As Ehrlich et al. (1995) note, human and agricultural fertilityare on a collision course and the stork is threatening to overtake theplow. A common proposal to solve the population growth problem is to increaseeveryone's level of affluence because the number of children per familyoften decreases in two or three generations. Can we believe this a reasonablesolution? Evidence indicates that, in the United States, this took threegenerations 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 additional4.6 billion people were to achieve it.
Even if we do, Vitousek et al. (1986) have shown persuasively that humansnow use more than 40% of the photosynthetic energy, which is the main sourceof food on the planet. Some of the energy goes to pets or is used in otherways that are perceived as beneficial to humans, such as gasohol. Nevertheless,humans determine how this energy will be used. The main point is that onespecies out of many millions is utilizing nearly half the photosyntheticenergy on the planet for its own benefit. Despite this, conditions stillprevail that do not permit the worth of each individual human (let aloneindividuals 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 climateand a number of other attributes of the planet. Odum notes that a skillfulparasite does not kill its host but rather permits it to survive, ideallywith only slightly impaired functional capabilities. Using this definitionof not killing the host or even seriously impairing its condition, a successfulparasite then would not utilize resources needed by the host for long-termsurvival nor would the parasite weaken the host so that its fitness ismarkedly reduced. Odum has a cautionary note that speaking of ourselvesor of our culture as parasitic is not intended to belittle but rather tobe realistic. He notes that humans are, ecologically speaking, dependenton other organisms for food and dependent on the natural environment ingeneral for air, water, and many essential materials. As one of the reviewersof 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 dependentupon the planet and other species for our survival, and, if so, why aren'twe treating it and them better so that future generations will have theamenities that we now enjoy?
This issue brings us to a developing dilemma of our time. The People'sRepublic 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 othercountries. If the population of the PRC begins to starve and the countrypossesses nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States, what wouldour response be to a request for supplementary food supplies if meetingthe request would raise prices markedly here? Even if the battle is notbetween nations for an evermore scarce food supply, would we impoverishEarth'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 thoughtfularticle by Prosterman et al. (1996) persuasively takes a position thatsurprisingly reasonable policy changes should enable China to feed itself.This, despite having only 0.11 hectares of fertile land for each personcompared to 0.73 hectares for each U.S. citizen. Three goals for achievingthis are: (1) increase productivity per hectare, (2) bring "unused"land into cultivation, and (3) slow encroachment on agricultural landsby factories, etc. It is the "unused" land goal that worriesme -- surely other species are using it. Another major problem is bothquality and quantity of water. In the volatile Mideast, Turkey has controlof the headwaters of a major river that supplies both Iraq and Syria withwater. After a dam was installed in Turkey and during the time it was beingfilled, very little if any water got to the countries downstream. In theUnited States, the Colorado River is so heavily used that very little waterreaches the former river mouth in Mexico. According to Aldo Leopold, thisnow biologically impoverished area was once an ecological paradise. Thisbrief section is meant to illustrate two points: (1) what individuals doin each country will have effects outside of that country and (2) therewill be a very diverse array of value systems regarding respect for theindividual, individual freedom, individual rights, and the like. Sustainabilitywill only be achieved when these issues have been openly discussed andsome workable compromise reached.
As a person who has, for decades, firmly embraced respect for the inherentworth and dignity of each individual and respect for the interdependentweb of life, the clash in values surfaced over 20 years ago when a fellowshipeffort was considered to send aid to Haiti that would significantly reduceinfant mortality and extend life expectancy for all age groups. Since theHaitians were then already exceeding the capability of their resource baseto permit sustained use at the existing population level, sending deathcontrol technology without accompanying it with birth control technologyseemed irresponsible! Ignoring the relationship between death rate andbirth 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 ofrespecting the inherent value and worth of each individual. I challengedthe merit of this effort because it responded to only a fragment of a verycomplex problem and might even make things worse. The challenge was followedby a vigorous, sometimes acrimonious, debate. In a recent letter, one ofthe people present at the debate, Whitfield Cobb, notes that he took itfor granted that the need was real, the relief was appropriate, and theappeal would be answered by contributions from many of us. He also remembersmy introduction of the military policy of triage -- dealing with individualbattle casualties -- and stating that the same kind of policy might beadopted for dealing with groups of people suffering in their particularbattle for survival. The triage concept would ignore countries such asSweden, for whom outside help is not critical, and countries for whom helpwould only temporarily solve a fragment of the problem (as time has shownwas the case for Haiti), but would direct limited resources to countrieswhere 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 nowappears to be considerable merit in the position I took. Another discussantstated that it was not nice to let people die and that mandatory birthcontrol was an infringement upon individual freedom. I agreed with bothstatements, but what about the professed reverence for the integrity ofthe web of life, which surely would be further damaged if the populationin Haiti grew at the rate that then seemed likely (and, as a matter offact, it subsequently did)? The debate ended there because I had no usefulsuggestions to offer in resolving the seemingly incompatible beliefs. Ihave yet, despite having struggled for over two decades, to find a solutionto this question that is satisfactory to most people.
Present human society is dependent on a life support system that isboth technological and ecological. Given the present human population sizeand level of affluence (and I do not ignore the level of poverty in bothdeveloped and developing countries), society is heavily dependent on atechnological agricultural system and, since roughly half the human populationlives in cities, transportation of food to the consumers, as well as disposingof 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 populationexist at present levels without the technologies that make urban life possible.
At the same time, isolation from truly natural systems has caused humanityto forget or ignore its dependence upon them. When economic developmentthreatens a natural system, economic development nearly always wins becausedevelopers scathingly point out that jobs cannot be sacrificed for a fewowls, etc.
There is, of course, evidence that human societies have perished becauseof over-exploitation of the environment. The area now occupied by Iraq,for example, appears to have had substantial human settlements in areasthat are now thinly populated. Easter Island is a particularly persuasivecase because the inhabitants severely impaired the ecosystem upon whichthey were dependent despite their intimate relationship with it (e.g.,Diamond 1994). Since the habitat was a remote island, the residents hadcompelling evidence that they could not easily emigrate to new areas. Short-termneeds nearly always win out, or take priority, over long-term needs, evenif disaster is inevitable. A second example of an ecological penalty is"cheat grass." It is so named because it grows early and vigorouslyin the spring and cheats other vegetation of nutrients and moisture thatit would otherwise get. Cheat grass is exotic, apparently brought to thiscountry around the beginning of the century, and as of August 1996 wasresponsible for hundreds of thousands of acres of grass fires in the westernstates (Public Broadcasting System, WUVT, Blacksburg, Virginia, August14, 1996) because, according to firefighters, it is almost like gasolinewhen it burns. This is a good example of a co- evolutionary phenomenon-- an exotic species was introduced to the detriment of indigenous speciesand did, in turn, adversely affect human society by causing fires thatdestroyed houses and other artifacts as well as causing substantial financialcosts of firefighting and rehabilitation of damaged areas. In short, cheatgrass is a splendid example of an ecological disequilibrium resulting fromhuman carelessness that adversely affects humans. Another good exampleis the Asian clam and zebra mussel, not native to North America but whichhave arrived here and spread widely, adversely affecting electric powergenerating cooling systems and a variety of other human activities (e.g.,Cairns and Bidwell 1996). For those who wish further information, two goodarticles 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 societyis the situation found by one of my former graduate students, ProfessorJay Stauffer, when he was working on the fishes of Lake Malawi. Staufferfound that some species of fishes in that lake preyed upon snails thatserved as the intermediate host for schistisomes, which adversely affecthumans. When the fisherpersons overharvested the fish species that controlledthe snails, the incidence of schistosomiasis went up dramatically, possiblyreaching 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 doneso for years, etc. Here is a situation where some rethinking is neededwith respect to the view of individual rights versus the rights of otherspecies versus the rights of human society not to be increasingly exposedto a severe disease.
Van Rensselaer (1995) notes that humans are members of the only speciesthat has the intellectual capacity to recognize that the extinction ofhumankind within the next few millennia is a distinct possibility. He alsonotes the set of "short-term" or "future-blindness"genes that strongly emphasizes day-to-day personal survival, materialacquisition,and personal power with no attention to the remote future. Ehrlich andEhrlich (1996) analyze the anti-environmental establishment that attemptsto discredit scientists who attempt to tackle such issues as populationgrowth, desertification, food production, global warming, ozone depletion,acid rain, and biodiversity loss -- in short, some of the problems mostlikely to affect sustainable use of the planet. A good summary of globalproblems can be found in Favar and Milton (1972).
The whole question of the individual versus the biosphere revolves aroundthe concept of what benefits the individual. Change how the individualis viewed and the conflict disappears. One can proclaim compassion onlyfor the individual and come off as caring and thoughtful, but there isan unrecognized cost --the interdependent web of life suffers as a consequenceof aggregate individual demands. To human eyes, this cost is not as visibleas the suffering of a fellow human. The floods in summer of 1993 on theupper portions of the Mississippi River drainage are estimated (in lateJuly 1993) to have damaged 22,000 homes and inundated 16,000 square milesof farm land. Even the river models of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersat the Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, got flashflooded and were unavailable for some time (p. 24, U.S. News and WorldReport, July 26, 1993). Rain water has three major exit pathways: (1)infiltrationof the ground, (2) evapotransporation (return of water to the atmospherethrough plain evaporation or evaporation through vegetation), and (3) runoff.If 1 and 2 are reduced, we can expect more runoff (i.e., floods).Evapotransporationhas been cut by society's reduction of forests and other natural vegetation,and infiltration has decreased through the loss of the porous topsoil thatacts like a sponge when water falls. In addition, highways, houses, carparks, shopping malls, etc. have created large impervious surface areasthat decrease infiltration. All of this increases enormously the pulseof the runoff into rivers, but all would not have been lost had not overhalf the nation's wetlands been filled in. Wetlands act as shock absorbers,storing flood waters and releasing them gradually into groundwater or backinto normal surface drainage. The interdependent web of life was alteredto 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 naturehas struck back. In March 1995, floods occurred in California, which haslost 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 submissionwith concrete and steel! Can we redefine the worth of the individual asa member of a community, not only of humans but of a large number of otherspecies? In that case, we might begin to restore some of the wetlands wehave drained, the forests we have clearcut, and the water and land we havecontaminated to some semblance of their predisturbance condition.
If I were asked if: (1) I respect the worth and dignity of all humanbeings and (2) I respect the "web of life" of which humans area part, I would answer yes to both but not as independent affirmations.Since we cannot optimize both by reducing population size for at leasta century, some flexibility is required. Additionally, we must admit thatthese two beliefs will be in conflict until some dynamic "steadystate"is reached. Hence, any society that is pro-growth for the human populationand simultaneously supports a modestly restricted access to ecological"capital" (e.g., sacrificing old growth forests, depleting qualitywater, plus use of land, water, and air as recipients of excessive societalwastes) is headed for conditions in which human worth and dignity willultimately be lost or impaired. Rudi Gelsey (personal communication) notes
The inherent worth and dignity of each individual is indeed an ambiguousformulation because it assumes that we are automatically worthy and endowedwith dignity. In reality, worth and dignity are only a potential inasmuchas 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. Drugdealers, pimps, mass murderers (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao), CEOs in corporationsthat poison the environment or grievously exploit their workers as slaves,corrupt politicians, and countless others can hardly claim that the inherentworth and dignity of each individual applies to them. Worth and dignitydo not inhere unless they are honored by the way we live.
Zero population growth (ZPG) and I = PAT should, therefore, be centralarticles of ethical beliefs or ethos (a set of guiding beliefs). The integrityof the web of life is markedly affected by the number of individuals (P),multiplied by their level of affluence (A), multiplied by their level oftechnological 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 alreadydestroying 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 populationversus ecosystem integrity arguments brought to national attention by thefirst Earth Day that was held more than two decades ago. I = PAT consistsof interrelated components so we should not fragment the factors affectingenvironmental impact. However, they can be modified individually, althoughtheir 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). Themen go to the marketplace and bond with other men while smoking and drinkingbeer and, thus, do not contribute to the well being of their environment.This places a demand on limited family resources, although, arguably,conversationis preferable to destroying ecosystems. Does this form of achieving individualworth and dignity deserve societal support? In our society, does drivinga high speed boat through areas occupied by manatees and fatally injuringmany deserve protection as an individual freedom? Should I be able to destroyan 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 initiatediscussion.
(1) We acknowledge our dependence upon the life support system providedby the planet's biosphere. Acknowledgment of dependence raises the levelof human accountability dramatically from merely expressing respect.Acknowledgingdependence should also diminish attempts to conquer and dominate naturalsystems.
(2) The inherent worth and dignity of every person shall be expressedand judged in the context of sustainable use of the planet. Individualworth and dignity are meaningless words without resources and a life supportsystem providing them. We should have no respect for expressions ofindividualitythat threaten the integrity of ecological life support systems nor forthose that consume resources needed for sustainable use of the planet (e.g.,biodiversity). Respect for inherent worth and dignity must be governedby a balance of compassion for our descendants, the other species withwhich we share the planet, and for the natural biophysical laws that maynot be violated without long-term consequences, despite the fact that theymight not be immediately apparent. I have actually heard UUs state thatwe are the dominant species, which implies that we are the most powerfulor influential species and may act imperiously or even tyrannically. Ourrespect for individual human worth and dignity should be tempered by therealization that there have been indigenous species inhabiting the planetfor many millions of years before the arrival of Homo sapiens. Perhapsthe statement on inherent worth and dignity should be rephrased to acknowledgethe late arrival of our species on the planet and an acknowledgment thatnot only persons but other species should be accorded respect or, betteryet, esteem.
Obviously, the rewording, if my suggestions are not totally ignored,will be difficult. The central issue is an open acknowledgment of dependenceto replace a statement of respect for the biophysical life support systemand to expand expressions of respect for human worth and dignity to individualsof other species as well. John Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz Professorat the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a memberof the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, recently(Holdren 1995) summarized the situation as follows: "We're not runningout of energy, but rather we're running out of environment, patience withinequity, money for sustainability, time for making a transition, and leadershipto do what is required." An excellent analysis of these points isfound in Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1996, pp. 94-97). Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederbergnotes that "Nature is not benign . . . The survival of the human speciesis not a preordained evolutionary program" (as quoted in Garrett 1994,p. 6). In terms of sustainability, should we see how many bodies we canpack 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 1960sof seeing how many individuals could be packed into a telephone booth ora Volkswagen beetle. Unbelievable figures could be achieved, but the qualityof life in such situations was not high. In calculating sustainability,it might be well to let quality of life control quantity of people ratherthan 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 belived soon," or in other words, perhaps more people can live qualitylives if we take the measures needed for sustainable use of the planetover a million years rather than seeing how quickly we can exploit theresources with technology now available. Quality of life should certainlybe a major consideration in the development of sustainability policies.
This article has been concerned with two things: (1) the need to redefineindividual worth and dignity so that it does not require damage to naturalsystems and (2) developing a respect for the web of life that will makesustainable long-term use of the planet a reality. Human society must scaledown (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 compatiblewith long-term sustainable use of natural systems, the inconsistencieswill be less glaring. There is both a need and an opportunity for humansociety to go beyond simple tenets and apply them realistically, therebybroadening the sense of how everything fits together and what we must alldo to solve the problems. At the very least, this will require a greatlyimproved environmental literacy.
In the draft of their splendid soon-to-be-published book The Alien'sGuide to Life on Earth, Whit and Anne Gibbons (personal communication/draftcopy) discuss the observation by an English journalist that inhabitantsof the northern territory in Australia "seemed almost jubilant wheneversomeone was taken by a crocodile." This, in my opinion, is recognitionthat a human invading a crocodile's home territory must accept certainrisks, which are increased dramatically by a failure to study indigenousspecies such as a crocodile carefully before doing so. On the other hand,the authors recall a newspaper account of a man bitten by an alligatorwhile wading in a pond after hours at a golf course in Orlando, Florida.When the incident was reported, the alligator was killed. Shouldn't webe more accepting of the natural behavior of wild animals and more willingto share the environment with them, especially when we have destroyed muchof their original environment that would have been much more to their likingthan golf course ponds? As the authors note, this does not mean that weacquiesce to the idea that humans are acceptable prey for crocodiles andalligators or any other animal. However, we should not expect to ventureinto their environment risk free and expect them to be slaughtered becauseof their normal behavior, of which we are often ignorant.
In the area around the UUFNRV in Blacksburg, Virginia, there are notmany animals out to eat us or even bite us. When the new fellowship buildingwas constructed a few years ago, we cleared away what remained of the nativevegetation and put in the good old American lawn. It is interesting that,when indigenous species try to recolonize this area, we make every attemptto eradicate them. My colleague Duncan Porter, a botanist, tells me thatindigenous species likely to attempt recolonization locally are the blacklocust, silver and sugar maples, North American chickweeds, and nativeplantains. There are also vigorous colonization attempts by exotic species,that were either deliberately or accidentally brought to North Americaby humans (such as the dandelion and thistle), to colonize. This posessome interesting judgments in interpreting our respect for the interdependentweb of life. Many of the exotic species, not native to North America, areclearly here to stay and many are quite resistant to human control, whichis why we call them "weeds." Should we only respect the interdependentweb of life when it includes species that we select and which would likelynot survive, and definitely would not thrive, without considerable useof energy and time in their management? Should there be any indicationof 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 retainthe respect statement among our beliefs?
Of course, allowing our property to revert to a wild state would arousethe ire of our neighbors and probably result in sanctions from the localgovernment. However, it should be possible to install a butterfly gardenand a bird sanctuary using indigenous species that might be regarded asenvironmental shrines to illustrate our esteem for the interdependent webof 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 youngergenerations as well. If UUs are to speak out on the environment, can wedo so when our own property does not display at least some tokens of ourrespect and esteem for natural systems? I have no solutions to these issues,but think they are worth discussion and would welcome any comments fromothers that would help me think through some of the complex, multivariateproblems discussed in this article. I like Scott Geller's (1994) activelycaring model. If we truly esteem natural systems, we should move from lukewarmrespect to actively caring!
I greatly appreciate the comments of Alan Heath, Arthur Snoke, RudiGelsey, and Karen D. Holl on an early draft of this manuscript. I am alsoindebted to Whitfield Cobb for the section on the Haiti situation and toLeslie Hager-Smith and Eric Smith for comments on the 1995 paper on thesethoughts. The thoughts in the abstract are the result of correspondencewith Peter H. Raven and Donald W. Aitken about "The Natural Step USAProgram." The Cairns Foundation paid for transcribing the dictationon this manuscript. As usual, my editorial assistant Darla Donald preparedthe text for electronic "publication" (my first).
Brown, L. R. 1995. Who Will Feed China? W. W. Norton & Co., NewYork. 163 pp.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1994. Ecological restoration: Re-examining human society'srelationship 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 individualversus the web of life: An unresolved conflict. Speculations in Scienceand Technology 18:294301.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1996. Determining the balance between technologicaland ecosystem services. Pages 13-30 in P.C. Schulze, ed. Engineering WithinEcological Constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J., Jr. and J. R. Bidwell. 1996. The modification of human societyof natural systems: Discontinuities caused by the exploitation of endemicspecies and the introduction of exotics. Environmental Health Perspectives104(11):2-5.
Daly, H. 1982. Review of The Ultimate Resources by Julian. Bulletinof 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: Thegolden age that never was. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts andSciences 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 andthe Plow. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 364 pp.
Favar, M. T. and J. P. Milton, eds. 1972. The Careless Technology: Ecologyand International Development. The Natural History Press, Garden City,New York. 1030 pp.
Garrett, L. 1994. The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a WorldOut 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.,ImplementingIntegrated Environmental Management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState 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. CrafoordPrize 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 CollegePublishing, St. Louis, MO.
Van Rensselaer, P. 1995. Global bioethics: Linking genes to ethicalbehavior. 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. Oikos57:7-13.
Vitousek, P., P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and P. Matson. 1986. Humanappropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36:368-373.
Wilson, E. O. 1987. The little things that run the world (the importanceand 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 UUFNRVHome Page