S: Should we discuss the example of the worldwide concern about protection of ecology and environment?
G: In such a straightforward issue, I do not think there can be any debate. The way human beings are exploiting natural resources, the World is heading towards an ecological and environmental disaster.
S: So, you mean that protection of environment and ecology is relevant to everyone.
G: Yes. This is the relevant perspective for everyone.
S: You want to say that everyone in the World know the scientific truth about how human beings are exploiting the environment and the non-renewable natural resources. This is first cause-effect relationship you depend on. Then you want to say that since everyone’s life and the lives of the future generations are at stake due to environment pollution and ecological damages being caused by human behaviour, everyone should be concerned. That is another cause-effect relationship you invoke. That is why you say that Environment and ecology concerns are relevant to everyone or the human society.
G: You got me correctly. That is what I want to say.
S: Unfortunately, you are wrong. First, everyone in the World does not know the scientific truth about human behaviour and environmental and ecological disaster. Only some people know.
G: Yes. If some people know the scientific truth, that is enough. All persons may not know at a given point. But truth is truth. Truth implies that human beings should change their behaviour. It is suffient if some persons who matter and have the power, know the truth t.
S: That’s how you perceive. But for those who do not know the truth, your perspective is irrelevant. Second, even if everyone knew the scientific truth, not all are interested in protecting the future. In fact many may not have any view about the future after their death.
G: Yes, some persons are very selfish. They do not care about the future generations. They are fools. They are not relevant.
S: Correct. For these people, your perspective is irrelevant. Let us assume for your sake, that everyone knows the scientific truth and are not selfish and care for future generations’ welfare. Still, the issue may not be relevant to some of them because they do not know what solution will change human behaviour.
G: Human beings should to try to find out solutions. That is why I think what I say is relevant to all who knows the truth. It is most relevant for the knowledgable culprit. It is the economically advanced West that is responsible for exploiting the environment and ecology in a non-sustainable and damaging way..
S: I do not agree with you. The debate on this subject will continue for long, if not ever, again and again. For that is the way Nature’s laws operate. There will be crises coming again and again because of the natural greed of human beings and consequential Natural Resource exploitation on a massive scale in ways that hurt the ecology and the environment.
G: So, you seem to agree
S: No. I do not agree with you. The ultimate disaster is not round the corner. Human beings will not be an extinct species in a short while. Human beings will continue to be doing other things in the meanwhile: invent technologies and changing life styles that will reduce the dependence on exhaustible natural resources, increase the use of renewable natural resources, increase the efficiencies of the use of natural resources, conserve ecology and protect environment as well as make possible comfortable living in adversely changing ecological and environmental conditions. We therefore need not anticipate a complete devastation in the foreseeable future.
G: You seem to have great faith on human capability to innovate, invent and adjust. But the West, particularly America seems to be interested in making the environment progressively adverse to normal, healthy human existence.
S: I do not agree that the West or America will continue to be the major contributors to ecological and environmental problems of the World today. The major contributors will soon be just two countries, China and India. They are poor and is on rapid growth trajectory. Their consumption of materials will bulge simply because of their size of population. If at all, it is the West that will come out with more efficient technological solutions to achieving rapid economic growth with less environment-polluting effect. In the meanwhile, we expect advanced countries to slip down the lower standards of living? We want to say that “ Hi, country ‘X’. You have enriched yourselves in the past by polluting environment and hurting ecological balance. Now, you stop. It is our turn to become rich by damaging the environment and ecology. We want reservation of less rich countries like us in future entitlement to pollute environment and contribute to ecological disaster”. Does this seem logical, rational, consistent or scientific?
G: Yes, we should get our turn! But we are not so mean. Rather we would like to work towards environmental and ecological protection. Let the West reduce its exploitation and consumption of natural resources in a manner that reduces depletion of finite stock of non-renewable sources of energy and other materials. Let them reduce pollution and protect environment. This will allow poor countries to consume more of such resources to grow fast economically.
S: Extra-ordinarily brilliant logic. The only problem is the relevant has become irrelevant here.
G: How?
S: It is known that earth has a finite stock of non-renewable natural resources. You want a fair distribution of each of these among all the people in the World. So, you may think of dividing each natural resource equally to each person irrespective of where the resource is located and where each person is located. As if, for each natural resource, you have a giant international company that has issued equal number of its shares to each person in this world. But then how do you deal with people of subsequent generations and the growth of population? You cannot solve this problem. Even if you had overcome this problem somehow, you face another problem. How do you take account for the exploitation of past generations that had exploited these resources? Better forget the past. Start fresh now. How do the shareholders use their shares to buy the natural resource they want to consume? So, you allow for trading in these shares and you allow a free international market for each natural resource to develop.
G: But markets are not always efficient and fair.
S: So, you would most likely suggest that we appoint some World Government or international democratic forum to solve the problem. But you cannot because you are tied to your nationality and you will need to develop of a system bureaucracy to deal with International Dispute resolution. That can be more inefficient and unfair than the market system. Your statist, bureaucratic efforts are as much a natural force as the free competitive market system. The actual outcomes may depend on the interaction of these forces.
No comments:
Post a Comment