Monday, 07 April 2008
Eco-cide vs Eco-hedonism
Add or View Comments- Mon, 07 Apr 2008
- View More On: Great Dilemmas
The question on my mind today is if the world is over-populated, under-resourced and bursting at the seams, is the most ethical way to live not to live at all? As with the best dilemmas, I present to you an argument between me and, ... me!
To live or not to live?
The UK's "Ecological Footprint" is on average 5.45 "global hectares" (gha) per person. The global capacity is 1.8 gha per person. While I've no doubt different calculations can provide slightly different numbers the trend is clear - we each use more than our fair share of resources. Death could be seen as the ultimate green action of the hyper-environmentalist.
Err...?
The question "are you serious?" probably jumps to mind. Always!
Really...?
Well, no, actually I don't endorse "eco-cide". The truth is though, eco-cide represents an extreme sacrifice and it leaves the question - should being environmentally conscious involve greater sacrifice or greater hedonism?
Indulgence?
Surely we can't be more environmentally conscious by being hedonistic? Hedonism is exactly the cause of all our problems? Maybe but we can't be more environmentally conscious by ending our lives either!
Two extremes...
So avoiding eco-cide and hedonism as extremes, they still represent two distinct directions. That of sacrifice and that of enjoyment. Unfortunately, our society perversely values sacrifice as a morally superior while connecting enjoyment with moral decline. However, the very definition of enjoyment makes it more appealing. The only plausible counter argument to choosing an enjoyable direction is that individual enjoyment can cause social harm - hence the moral appeal of sacrifice which would seem to have opposite effect.
Ah... but...
In reality, while individual enjoyment can cause social harm - think sports cars and SUVs, so can individual sacrifice - stop buying fair trade bananas (a sacrifice to save airplane emissions) and ask yourself if anyone is worse off? So if there is always a risk of causing social harm, the important point is to mitigate the harm created rather than to make yourself feel better with the moral approbation of sacrifice.
Huh?
I mean, if both can be socially good or bad, why not choose the route which makes you better off and then make sure it doesn't make other people worse off at the same time!
So that just leaves us with how?
Any suggestions, anyone?
No comments have been submitted for this post