Science, ethics and the natural environment

by Stephen Boyden.

Presented at the Manning Clark House Symposium: Science and Ethics: Can Homo sapiens Survive? Canberra, 17-18 May 2005

I was asked to talk today about the impacts of human society on the natural environment.

Obviously, this is a topic of immense importance — because it is now well appreciated that, because of these impacts, present patterns of human activity on Earth are not ecologically sustainable. And ecological sustainability is not just a luxury — a nice thing to be had if you can afford it. If a society is not ecologically sustainable it cannot, in the long term, be sustainable in any other way. It is an absolute necessity for the survival of civilisation.

But first a few brief comments on the biohistorical background to the environmental predicament.

The history of life on Earth has been marked by a series of crucial watersheds, each with enormous consequences for the future of the biosphere. Examples include, first of course, the coming into existence of the very earliest forms of living organisms, followed by the development of photosynthesis, the appearance of the first multicellular organisms, and so on. After each watershed the patterns of life on Earth were very different than they had been before.

The most recent major watershed, of overwhelming significance for life on our planet, was the evolutionary emergence of the humankind’s most distinctive biological attribute, the capacity for culture. For as soon as human culture came into existence it began, through its influence on people’s behaviour, to have impacts not only on humans themselves, but also on other living systems. It evolved as a new kind of force in the biosphere, destined eventually to bring about profound and far-reaching changes across the whole planet.

In fact, I have decided not to try to describe the various culture-induced changes in the ecosystems of our planet that are cause for concern. It would take too long, and anyway members if this audience are likely to be well informed on thesematters.

The really important issues include the following:

• The enhanced greenhouse effect, and other atmospheric changes affecting the climate
• Various forms of land degradation, including the disruption of nutrient cycles, soil erosion, soil salinisation and general biological impoverishment of soil
• Thinning of the ozone layer, allowing greater penetration of ultraviolet rays to the Earth’s surface
• Worldwide contamination of ecosystems with persistent organic pollutants
• Excessive deforestation and other bioharvesting activities
• Loss of biodiversity due to all theses causes on land and in the oceans. Extinctions resulting from human activities have been estimated at up to 140 000 a year. At this rate we will wipe out half the existing species in 70 years .

Together, these impacts of human society on the living world constitute a major threat to the long-term viability of the biosphere as a system capable of supporting human civilisation. The other great threat to the biosphere, of course, is the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that exists in the modern world.

So — rather than detailing these various cause for concern — I would like to draw attention to a few perspectives which are important for our understanding of the scale and seriousness of present predicament. In doing so, I will resort to the use of some rather simplistic analogies. I make no apology for this. Analogy is a useful device for communicating a sense of perspective.

The fact that human activities on Earth today are not sustainable ecologically is a function of two sets of changes. First, there is the increase in the human population. There are now about a 1000 times as many people to be fed as there were before farming began around 450 generations ago, putting enormous pressures on the food-producing ecosystems of the biosphere. The difference is equivalent to providing a school child with arvo tea as compared with providing 20 busloads of children with arvo tea.

Second, during the past few generations there has been a massive intensification of resource and energy use and technological waste production by humankind. Figures for energy use are perhaps the best single indicator of the intensity of impact of our species on the ecosystems of the planet. Humankind as a whole is now using about 12 000 times as much energy per day as was the case when farming first started. The humans population as a whole is now using about 12 000 times as much energy per day as was the case when farming first started. And humans are giving off about 12 000 times as much of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide — as well, of course, as vast amounts of other pollutants.

I do not have the up-to-date figures for the number and quantities of chemical compounds manufactured in significant quantities in modern society. However, already 25 years ago about 30 000 different chemicals were manufactured in quantities greater than one tonne each year, while 1500 of theses were produced in quantities greater than 50 000 tonnes a year. Much of this material eventually finds it ay into the natural environment, often with serious consequences for living organisms.

If all populations around the world had the same intensity of technometabolism as the developed countries, the increase in energy use and CO2 emissions would be around 60 000 fold.

Another important factor is the recentness of the changes that are causing concern. To illustrate this I suggest you picture yourself on the stage of a large theatre with room for an audience of two thousand. In your mind’s eye, place your mother in the seat at one end of the front row, and then her mother next to her and so on — until you have filled the place with 2000 generations of mothers and daughters. The great majority of your maternal ancestors in the theatre would have known nothing of agriculture or the urban way of life. Only the women in the front twenty or so rows would have been alive since the time when farming first began, and only those in the front six or seven rows would have lived after the earliest cities came into existence, although very few of them are likely to have actually lived in cities. You could fill two or three more similar theatres with earlier maternal hunter-gatherer ancestors belonging to the species Homo sapiens. All these women really existed, and they lived in a state of health, at least until the birth of a child.

The explosive increase in population and, more especially, in resource and energy use and technological waste production has occurred mainly in our own life times, but to some extent in the life times of the two most recent maternal ancestors sitting at the end of the front row.

The extraordinary acceleration in the increase in intensity of human activities on Earth can also be illustrated with another analogy.

Let us suppose that:

• the beginning of farming was 12 hours ago (rather than 12,000 years)
• at that time humankind jumped into a vehicle it had invented (representing technology)
• the speed of this vehicle is proportional to the total amount of energy used each day by humankind — which , as I have suggested, is a reasonable indicator of the overall impact of humankind on the natural world
• this vehicle set off, 12 hours ago, at 1 km an hour.

After about 8 hours — or four hours ago — it was going much faster, at 40 km per hour. By one hour ago, it had picked further speed and was going at 85 km per hour. Fifteen minutes ago it was traveling at 225 km per hour, and by 6 minutes ago it was going at 820 km per hour. Three minutes ago it was traveling at 2500 km per hour, and right now it is going at 12 000 km per hour.

There really is a problem here.

We cannot leave this exercise in ecological perspectives without mention of weaponry — because the potential ecological damage of warfare making use of the most sophisticated modern weapons would be ecologically devastating on the global level. The growth in the killing potential of bombs during the twentieth century can be illustrated by another analogy.

If we imagine the explosive power of the biggest bombs in the First World War to be represented by a pea, then the most powerful weapons (other than the atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki used in the Second World War) would equal the size of a large plum. The Hiroshima bomb and Nagasaki bombs (that killed many more people than the recent tsunami) would each be equivalent to a sphere of about 0.5 metres across, and the most powerful bombs now ready for use would have a diameter of 5 metres.

It would not take many of these to bring about the ecological collapse of civilisation and an end to the living biosphere as we know it today.

According to recent estimates, there are around 15 000 nuclear warheads in existence

Returning to the ecological unsustainability of current patterns of resource and energy use, common sense tells us that there must indeed be a limit to the amount of damage that humans can do to the ecosystems of our planet before they cease to support civilisation. The crucial question is: How far are we from reaching these limits?

Opinions differ on this point. A middle view is that of the 1500 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), including 101 Nobel Prize winners, who issued a statement in 1992 entitled World’s scientists’ warning to humanity. They stated ‘No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats that we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.’

So far I have been focusing on the environmental predicament from the scientific point of view. But this meeting is about science and ethics.

Incidentally, I should make it clear that my emphasis in this talk is on science for understanding, as distinct from the application of scientific knowledge for the development of new technologies.

Science tells us about the cause and effect relationships in the biophysical system — — the biological and ecological consequences of certain actions. It tells us the CFCs will result in thinning of the ozone layer, and that this in turn will result in increased UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. It also tells us that increases in UV radiation will result in more skin cancer in people, and will upset food chains in the oceans — as well as numerous other effects.

Similarly science informs us about the enhanced greenhouse effect due to increases human induced emissions of carbon dioxide. And it explains that certain farming practices are likely to cause land degradation. And it tells us that the Siberian tiger and the Eastern Quoll are on the verge of extinction. And much more

But science does NOT tell us whether any of this matters.

It does not tell us whether it matters if we humans wreck the living system that brought us into being. It Doe not tell us whether it matters if the human species comes to an early end, through its own activities.

Science does not say what is right or wrong.

I am now going to depart from my usual practice and introduce a very personal segment into this talk. I am going to say something about my own experience — not because I expect you to be in the least interested in my personal life history — but because it is the best way I can think of to explain something that seems to me rather important.

Having apparently dismissed science as a source of ethical judgment, I will now describe how, for me personally, the sciences, and in particular, the life sciences, have, in fact, influenced my own worldview and values

I should say at the outset that I am among those individuals who have an extremely strong sense of caring for the living world — that is, for the natural environment and for humankind as part of nature.

Indeed, I am among those who share Albert Schweitzer’s sense of reverence for life.

So, I ask myself how this came about?

I believe it all goes back to my early childhood. Until the age of five I lived in the heart of London. Then, on my fifth birthday my family moved to live in the country — where, to my absolute delight — suddenly — there were all sorts of living things — all around our home.

I still remember the moment of extreme excitement and sense of wonder when I found my first newt, under an old log. And then the lizards, frogs, voles, foxes, all kinds of birds — as well as wonderful grasses and beautiful trees.

From then on I had a great thirst for knowledge about nature, and about the processes of life in general.

Some years later I graduated in veterinary science — and eventually ended up doing research in immunology, before shifting to human ecology and biohistory in the second part of my career.

The point of this autobiographical digression is simply to explain that the more I learn about the story of life on Earth and of the details of living processes , through personal observation (e.g. the newt under the log and my own scientific research — through the observations of others — the more I learn, the greater is my sense of wonder and amazement.

And the more I learn, the greater my sense of respect for the processes of life and for the creative forces that gave rise to the living world.

I am thinking not only of the natural environment — with all its diversity and beauty — but also, for example, the amazing and extremely complex processes that go on inside my own body, and that have kept it going for over 80 years.

Associated with these sentiments is the strong wish to protect nature and to work for harmony between human society and the rest of the living world. Built in to my mindset is the conviction that it is wrong to destroy living organisms needlessly , and that preserving biodiversity should have very high priority in societal planning.

These are ethical, not scientific, judgments. But they are an outcome of my understanding of nature through direct observation — through science.

For me, this scientific source of ethical judgment — based on conscious observation — is much more meaningful, and much more convincing, than any ‘revelations’ that might come from dreams, hallucinations or messages from otherworldly voices created in my unconscious mind (or, for that matter, in anybody else’s unconscious mind)

I know many others who could tell similar stories.

I realise that all this brings me quite close, ethically, to the deep ecologists. The definitions of deep ecology (it is a pity about the name) vary quite a bit — but the following will suffice:

‘Deep ecology is an approach to ethics that holds that the non-human environment has intrinsic value that is independent of human interests. Deep ecology is a reaction to anthropocentric approaches to the environment which hold that the environment has value only as a means of promoting human interests. Deep ecologists view the value of human activities in a larger environmental context.'

Certainly, I find myself in general agreement with ‘The Deep Ecology Platform’, one version of which reads as follows:

1. All life has value in itself, independent of its usefulness to humans.
2. Richness and diversity contribute to life’s well-being and have value in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs in a responsible way.
4. The impact of humans in the world is excessive and rapidly getting worse.
5. Human lifestyles and population are key elements of this impact.
6. The diversity of life, including cultures, can flourish only with reduced human impact.
7. Basic ideological political, economic and technological structures must therefore change.
8. Those who accept the foregoing points have an obligation to participate in implementing the necessary changes and to do so peacefully and democratically.

Deep ecologists put a great deal of emphasis on what they call ‘deep experience’, which is described as a semi-religious experience. In the words of two deep ecologists: ‘Insofar as these deep feelings are religious, deep ecology has a religious component, and those people who have done the most to make societies aware of the destructive way in which we live in relation to natural settings have had such religious feelings.’

‘Thinking like a mountain’ has become a popular phrase in the deep ecology movement, although I have to admit that I have a problem with ‘thinking like a mountain’. I have no idea what it means. But I do not deny a ‘spiritual’ dimension’ of my own experience of nature.

Of course, the deep ecologists and like-minded people are in a minority. The ideal of ‘conquering nature’ is still with us today. It goes back at least two or three hundred years to the so-called Enlightenment. For example, Descartes wrote of the purpose of science as part of the struggle to ‘render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature’

The notion of conquering nature was also part of the central dogma of Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution — going against earlier established Chinese philosophy, and it is said to be still important in China today.

There is an interesting website called ‘Capitalism Magazine’. The titles of couple of articles on the environment are as follows: Reject environmentalism, not DDT; and Wasting billions on the green agenda. And there is an article called ‘Industrialisation and the environment’, in which the author describes what he calls the ‘nature-as-sacred creed’.

He finishes his article with the following words:

Some forms of religious fundamentalism also view environmental degradation as acceptable, if not desirable.

What, then, are the chances of the processes of cultural reform coming effectively into play and overcoming the ecological problems before it is too late? The reform movement is, of course, already underway — but it certainly has a long way to go. The question is: Will it proceed quickly enough to prevent massive degradation of the life supporting systems of our planet?

When I am in an optimistic frame of mind — I see a glimmer of hope. The fact is: Humans do have amazing ingenuity when motivated. I emphasize, when motivated. Nuclear weapons, computers and the elimination of smallpox are among countless recent manifestations of this fact.

I believe it’s well within the capacity of humankind to bring the ecologically destructive processes under control. But at present the motivation to do so is lacking — certainly at the societal and national governmental level. And without this motivation, there will be no significant change.

This lack of motivation itself is a function of the worldview and delusions of the dominant culture of our society, which are simply not compatible with ecological sustainability.

I am thinking, for example, of what has been called ‘ideology of evermoreism’ — that is, the cultural delusion that human welfare necessarily requires an ever-increasing consumption of material goods — that is, an ever-increasing use of resources and energy and outpouring of waste products.

This assumption, of course, is ecologically absurd.

In my view, the necessary motivation will not come about unless and until there is dramatic change in this dominant culture. It will not come about unless and until this culture comes to embrace, at its heart, a basic understanding of the processes of life, and of the human place in nature, and, as a consequence of this understanding, a profound sense of respect for the living world

I am talking here not just of an increase in environmental awareness — but rather of a radical transformation in the dominant culture’s world view, ethics and priorities. In my view, a sea change of this kind in the dominant culture is a precondition for the achievement of ecological sustainability. It would have important impacts on the outcome of decision-making at all levels of society — with repercussions echoing through the whole system.

A shift of this kind in the prevailing culture would amount to a veritable cultural renaissance. It would mean that once again, as in the days of our hunter-gatherer and early farming ancestors, interest in, and respect for, the living world would be at the core of our cultural system

We must aim for a society in which this kind of understanding — I call it ‘biounderstanding’ — is part of the shared knowledge of all people, in all communities, reflecting the reality that we are living beings, products of the processes of biological evolution, and entirely dependent on the processes of life (within us and around us) for our very existence. Only then will there be sufficient motivation at the societal level to take the necessary steps to achieve ecological sustainability.

I am therefore personally convinced that by far the most urgent need at the present time is in the realm of education — at all levels, and right across the community. This must be our highest priority. This is where immediate action is needed.

For these reasons, my own main interest these days is in the ways and means by which this cultural renaissance might come about.

To summarise — science, ethics and the natural environment:

As I see it, the role of science in any future transition to ecological sustainability is twofold.

First, it can provide the information to the community about the nature, causes and likely impacts on society of human-induced ecological unsustainability, and about the practical ways and means of achieving sustainability.

Without this knowledge, sustainability cannot be achieved

And second, and just as importantly, for some people at least (and I am one of them) the knowledge provided by science of the story of life on Earth — the big picture — and of the processes of life — that is, ‘biounderstanding’ — can lead to a worldview characterised by profound respect for the living world. This in turn can lead to the motivation to bring about the far-reaching changes in society that will be necessary for the attainment of ecological sustainability.

In my view —without an ethical transformation of this kind, there is little hope for civilisation.

10

1. Ron Nielsen. 2005. The little green book Scribe Publications, Melbourne. pp 442-43. The main causes of this loss of biodiversity are habitat destruction through various bioharvesting activities of humankind, including farming, fishing and logging. Other causes include the release of exotic species into the environment and construction of buildings and roads and the destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems in preparation for farming monocultures.
2. Already the concentration in the atmosphere has reached nearly 40% higher than in pre-industrial times.
3. See also, for example (10 F. Graham-Smith (Ed.). Population ' the complex reality A report of the Population Summit of the world"s scientific academies. The Royal Society, London; (2) Board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Living beyond our means: natural assets and human well-being. Co-chaired by A. H. Zakri Director Institute of Advanced Studies United Nations University and Robert Watson Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor ESSD, World Bank 'At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning. Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of the Earth that the ability of the planet"s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." ) http://www.millenniumassessment.org
4. This movement owes its origin to the writings of Arne Naess, for example A. Naess. 1973. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movements. Inquiry 16 95-100.
5. According to my dictionary 'ecology" means the study of the relationships between living organisms and their environment. 'Deep ecology" would therefore mean the deep study of the relationships between living organisms and their environment. This, of course, is not at all what deep ecologists mean by the term
6. See www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/ethics_03.html
7. See Stephan Harding ' http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/185/harding185.htm
8. Devall and Sessions, 1985 quoted in www.webnb.btinternet.co.uk/deep.htm).
9. www.budsir.org/Toward/4_faith_3.htm
10. See Judith Shapiro. 2001. Man"s war against nature: politics and the environment in revolutionary China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. S.Boyden 2004. The biology of civilisation: understanding human culture as a force in nature. UNSW Press, Sydney
12. Personally, I believe that this bioperspective could also make an important contribution to overcoming the terrible conflicts that exist across the globe today ' but this is another story.