All this leads us back to permaculture ethics, or, using Zizek’s approach, Permaculture’s guidelines for avoiding excess. The first tenet is to care for the Earth. Obviously, puerile fantasies of space colonization aside, we are all dependent on a healthy planet to sustain us. To endanger life on this planet is to endanger ourselves. This is clear enough. All life has an inherent value. Once this is recognised, thoughtless environmental destruction can be avoided. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is a step in the right direction: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied…”
The second tenet, contained within the first, is to care for people. People need access to clean air and clean water. To borrow from Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, [sensible, sustainable] housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
22.11.05
Permaculture ethics
Permaculture Reflections
The third tenet (limits to population and growth) is, surprisingly, controversial with most people. Frankly, I find it controversial that people think that population could continue to grow and grow. Perhaps they think that it would be fine if the population density of the planet were one per square meter? Or better yet if the mass of the population equalled the mass of the Earth? Of course, they know what would happen before that point is reached: the same thing that happens to yeast populations in a vast of fermenting wine. That, for me, is more controversial.
RépondreSupprimerWith regards to perpetual growth, this is an ongoing fantasy within the fields of business and economics. Yes, numbers are infinite, but the physical world is not. The Earth is a closed system that is incapable of supporting infinite anything, at least in terms of the physical world.
Do you actually think those people believe the population could go on growing for ever, or do you think they define 'for ever' as the their own life span?
RépondreSupprimerOf course we could say, what the hell, one day the world will collapse, who cares? But unfortunately, that's not how it works, is it? If indeed the world does one day collapse, before that it will go through several catastrophes (it already is), which will continue to bring immense suffering. So, of course it's easy not to give a damn about whether the Earth lasts forever or not, but do we really not give a damn about those who suffer? Especially as it could be us.
I think that the kind of people who believe in either perpetual population growth or perpetual economic growth really don't think that much at all, at least not about those two issues.
RépondreSupprimerRegarding the collapse of the world, I don't know that the world collapsing is the right way to look at it. That is a human-centered view and a human-centered view has been a big part of the problem that has gotten us where we are. If humans are totally swept away, there will still be life. That life, however, will not have a capacity for remarkable intelligence which it can then ignore, so it should do fine.
I think perhaps that poorer countries will pull through ok. Things are going very well in Kerala, for example. But the "developed" countries have a huge overpopulation problem and an arrogant citizenry that resist living within their means. According to McLennan County Farm Bureau President Jimmy Westerfeld, there are a lot of farmers facing the prospect of being unable to grow anything next year due to petrol costs. We'll find out just how pervasive that is in the U.S. if we are hit with huge increases in food prices in 2006/2007. What it really shows, though, is how our great society is hinged upon just a few threads that are vital to keeping the whole thing afloat. Cut one or two of those threads and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Now, I'm counting the moments until someone comes along and pooh-poohs everything I've said through the use of informal fallacies.
You say kerala is doing fine, but surely it is not safe from 'natural' catastrophes, is it? Is anywhere safe?
RépondreSupprimerIt's running its show properly, so it's doing fine. Natural disasters happen, but if you don't live in a foolish place like I do, then you'll probably be ok.
RépondreSupprimerHang about, do you think the environmental follies of those foolish places can't affect other parts of the world? You saying environmental dammage respects national borders...?
RépondreSupprimerI understand you're saying Kerala is taking sensible measures, but that doesn't make it safer from the damage done to the environment by the big polluters surely. That's exactly why we in the first world have a responsibility, not just for ourselves, but for the whole world.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Our pollution, even when local in origin, has the potential to be international in scope.
RépondreSupprimerWhat I am trying to say is that in the very likely event of a collapse of agricultural systems, Kerala is going to be doing alright. Western farming is nothing more than using land to convert petroleum products and petroleum derived products into food.
I think that you are thinking about global warming. We could be beyond the tipping point for climate catastrophe already, who knows? It is a question that can only be answered post-event. A positive answer means that our species is in serious trouble.
At any rate, if we depend on the one third world becoming responsible, we are doomed.
Sorry, I consfused two different things!
RépondreSupprimer