• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Eco-Humanism?

A good UK skeptic blog...

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/09/eco-humanism.html

September 23, 2009, 12:19:19 | Editors

At New Matilda, Sarah Burnside argues that:

The simplest and most compelling argument for addressing climate change is humanist in
nature. As
human beings, we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the
specific level
of provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more
abstract sense
of societal cohesiveness. By extension, policies put forward to combat the effects of
climate
change need not be justified by invoking Gaia or anthropomorphising dolphins or polar
bears.

This statement comes, not, as one might expect, as a criticism of the Green movement's
tendency to
mythologise, or anthropomorphise the natural world, but at the end of an attack on
'deniers'. She
concludes:

Rather, progressives sensibly argue that human beings have a duty to each other, including
to
future generations. Humans will fail in this duty if we place short-term economic gain
over the
environmental conditions which will shape the lives of humanity in the future.

Arguments like these are drawn not from a "green religion", but from a belief in
humanity.

Burnside must, however, recognise that there certainly exists a 'green religion', or at
least, that
irrational ideas do operate, and achieve influence within the green 'movement'. She must
also
recognise that these are the principle weaknesses of the movement she wishes to advance,
and
moreover, are the principle object of the 'deniers' arguments, and ought to be the object
of her
criticism too.

But as we have pointed out before, it is very hard for environmentalists to criticise
their own. It
is not a movement which is able to reflect critically on itself, or even its own elements.
It is,
so to speak, as if its 'own parts do not smell'. But in fact we don't need to look far to
find
intensely anti-human and influential currents within the Green movement that stand opposed
to
political and material freedoms - so much of it fails Burnside's test of humanism,
comprehensively.

So what are we left with, if we strip away all of the anti-human elements of the entire
green
movement? We think: nothing.

Burnside may want to disagree. In her attack on 'denialists', however, she gives us only
two clues
as to what a green humanism might consist of:

.human beings have a duty to each other, including to future generations.

and

.we must take seriously our need to care for each other, whether at the specific level of
provision of universal healthcare benefits and international aid, or in the more abstract
sense of
societal cohesiveness.

This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct. You don't need
to be an
environmentalist to believe in 'universal healthcare', or for social cohesion, for
instance. The
rhetorical implication of Burnside's article is that the 'deniers' she lists just don't
care about
people. Burnside talks more about policy than about precepts, and reveals more about her
own
prejudices than her opponents'.

As we have argued here, one can understand climate change as a problem that needs
addressing
without believing that the problems stand as moral imperatives that demand special form of
politics. We could - hypothetically - for instance, argue that an Arctic free from summer
sea ice
is, while in some senses regrettable, perhaps a price worth paying for the development
that might
cause it. We could, again hypothetically, emphasise that development offers the people who
are most
vulnerable to climate a better hope of both prosperity and survival than does a
'sustainable'
lifestyle.

These propositions are, however, anathema to almost the entire green movement, who will
put either
the worst-case scenario or the precautionary principle in the way of such a moral
calculation.

This is because there is a fundamental idea operating within environmentalism which is
incompatible
with humanism. It proposes that our principle relationship is not with each other, but
with the
natural world. Accordingly, 'duty to each other' exists principally as a duty to the
planet, and
'societal
cohesiveness' comes from without humanity, being predicated on a sustainable relationship
with the
natural world. In other words, human relationships are - and must be - mediated by the
'environment'.
These precepts operate prior to the humanist ethic that Burnside attempts to claim for the
green
movement: humanism is delimited by environmentalism. A failure to recognise these
environmental
precepts is, according to environmentalists, equivalent to wanting to destroy humanity in
an
environmental catastrophe.

There is no such thing as eco-humanism, nor progressive environmentalism. Environmentalism
is
simply anti-human by degree - the extent to which any variant of environmentalism is
anti-human is
the extent to which it subjects humans to environmental 'ethics'.

Any notion which doesn't take the possibility of global catastrophe for granted is
excluded from
the discussion, and so the discussion about how to organise our lives is premised on the
idea that
if we don't recognise environmental imperatives, we will necessarily create Thermageddon.
The
problem with any such calculation is that its conclusion is its premise. It exists prior
to the
scientific investigation of our influence on the climate, and it exists prior to the
discussion
about how human society will in turn be influenced by that change, and how we ought to
respond.

Antworten