FileNewTemplate

The Ethics of SustainabilityJean KazezPhilosophy DepartmentSMUSustainable developmentSustainable fishingSustainable agricultureSustainable consumptionSustainable miningSustainable drillingSustainable forestryWhat does it mean?Sustainable X-ing =Doing X in such a way that future people will have enough and as good*

* Phrase from John Locke, 1690If sustainable then innocent?Sustainable graffitiSustainable tiger huntingSustainable whalingSustainable cannibalismIf its permissible to do X at all, then we are obligated to do X sustainablyBut why are we obligated? Are we really?2012 2025 2050 2075 2100XX = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.1. Why must we leave as much and as good for future people? What if that requires us to sacrifice money, work, time, satisfaction, etc.?2012 2025 2050 2075 2100XX = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.2. Must we sacrifice just as much for people in the far future as for people in the near future?SurveyYou are given $1000 that you must donate to future people. What amounts will you give to the people of each year? (Make sure numbers add up to 1000!)2025205020752100Allocations of 9 students in Environmental Ethics classThe Debate about Duties to Future PeopleDefenders we must give the same consideration to future people as to people living right now.

Discounters there are good reasons to sacrifice less for future people than for people living right now. The further in the future, the less we should sacrifice.Defenders of Future PeopleStudents prejudiced.Prejudice against future people is like prejudice against other disadvantaged groups.We are all susceptible to this prejudice.We even feel it toward our own future selves.Defenders of Future PeopleWe are like people at a party saying first come first served!Earths resources belong to all, no matter when they arrive. Locke (1690): the earth and all inferior creatures are common to all men Locke: we can appropriate resources by mixing our labor with them, but only if we leave enough and as good for others (present and future).Defenders of Future PeopleGuardians of the Future Future people are entitled to political representation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/apr/20/guardians-for-the-future-environment13Discounters of Future PeopleDiscount means should sacrifice less for them not should totally dismiss.The further in the future, the more we should discount; 2025 vs. 2100.Economics: social discount rate. Social Discount Rate(1.4% vs. 6%)

John Broome, The Ethics of Climate Change, Scientific American, 2008Why discount future people?Some spooky reasonsMost future people are non-existent. Why should we make sacrifices for non-existent people? Our policies, however reckless, will alter who exists in the future. Whoever exists will most likely be glad they exist, so they wont have any complaint about our policies.

Why discount future people?More spooky reasonsGod will provide maybe even a second planet!

The end is nigh eat drink and be merry!

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)Nearer future people are closer relatives of ours, so we have stronger obligations to them.Future people will be richer than us; poor dont have to help rich.

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)We should save for future people not spend for them (theyll be better off)There are a zillion future people we cant have duties to them all.

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)They will have knowledge and technology we cant anticipate.

Manure Project*, London 1850Nave and Gratuitous (NAG)

* ImaginaryDefenders vs. DiscountersWhich side is right?

Are any of these good reasons to discount the problems of future people?Nearer future people are closer relatives of ours.Future people will be richer than us; why should poor give to rich?We should save for them, not spend on them now. There are a zillion future people we cant have duties to them all.They will have knowledge and technology we cant predict.

The Mixed TruthShould overcome bias.No fixed rate of discount.Should not assume future people will be rich; we may make them poor!However, we should try to avoid wasting money and effort on NAGs.

Definite NAGDont botherSustainable song-writing (save some melodies for future generations).Sustainable mountain-climbing (save some first ascents for future generations).Can you think of a non-silly example of a definite NAG?Definite NAG Might be NAG Might be NAG Definitely not NAGDont bother Not worth it Should do anyway Must do Definitely not NAGMust doSustainable land use future people will not be able to invent new land (e.g. city living, building up)Conservation future people will not be able to recreate wilderness and biodiversity that we destroyPopulation control future people will not be able to cope with huge populations

Might be NAG should do anywayGreenhouse gas reduction (future people may have geoengineering solution)Eat less meat because it wastes land (future people may be eating lab meat)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/lab-meat.html27Might be NAGnot worth it

Very high probability of helpful future knowledgeVery high sacrifice and expense for usExamples?

SummarySustainable X-ing means saving enough and as good for future peopleSustainable X-ing is only good if X is permissible to begin withTheres a debate between discounters and defenders of future peopleWise planners will avoid NAG-ing.

BibliographyJohn Broome, The Ethics of Climate Change, Scientific American 2008 John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 1690Derek Parfit, Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Social Discount Rate (1983)Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 1984Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010)FAO (United Nations), Livestocks Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and OptionsSahotra Sarkar, Environmental Philosophy: From Theory to Practice (2012)Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (2002)