Prodigy and the Public Good

Erik Klingbeil
April 21, 2013

Prodigy and the Public Good

Undeniably, those ideas- respect for the dead, the little platoon and tradition- are difficult to invoke in the modern climate of opinion, partly because progressively minded people have done their best to marginalize them, recognizing them as obstacles to radical solutions and as the foundations of the ordinary civil society that they seek to change. (Scruton 221)

Scruton begins his argument with a definitional understanding of human capacity. He reasons that humans are capable of using morality to provide introspection into their lives. The result of self-consciousness is rationality and moral motives. Therefore, humans are motived by more than just how the laws of the market and government govern them to behave as the popular notion would have us believe. As a result, our self-consciousness will make us aware of the burdens our ambitions place on future generations and nature. He argues that we must therefore limit our modern consumption in order to benefit future generations.

He argues that this drive towards natural conservation relates to interpersonal relationships and community. Scruton argues that an appreciation for our heritage and ancestors will spring our concern for the future progress. Yet, our generation has wasted the accumulation of institutions and resources provided us by our ancestors. Therefore, modern culture needs a reevaluation of our interaction and dependency upon nature. Keynesian economics dictates that we should act in the best way to benefit the current generation. Yet, humanity needs to have concern for the future health of the environment beyond simple cost-benefit calculations. Our generation composes the trustees of environmental conservation as bestowed upon later generations and should value the responsibility that the position bestows. However, Scurton argues that an intergenerational relationship is fostered on the family and community level. Specifically, trust and affection are what is developed at the local and family-based level.

In order to achieve these affections, having volunteerism and civic initiatives stimulates a responsibility among society to protect the commons. Little platoons of volunteerism much like NGO, allow with the expression of this form of concern and connection with the environment and future generation in a constructive manner. The preservation of tradition is also another manner upon which to ensure environmental conservation for future generations. Tradition is a form of knowledge that is passed down from generations in order to preserve the natural order. However, due to a neglect of tradition amidst the current generation that has devalued tradition and understanding for ancestral practices and knowledge there has been a lack of respect for nature. Ultimately these small changes in our perceptions of society and consumption through practices advocated by respect for the dead, volunteerism and tradition are marginalized by progressive because they appear too passive in addressing pressing environmental concerns.

Gratitude of the younger generations is important to establishing a sense of obligation to assist the future generations. Self-realization beyond a first person narrative to a second person standpoint is important for cultivating individual understandings of responsibility to progeny and environmental conservation. Developing a social contract helps us to remain connected with the public good. Thereby creating a situation in which we promote our own interests and the interests of society by striving to fulfill our own motivations. A social contract necessitates an understanding by the community of the need for cohesiveness. The success of a social contract depends upon the trust of citizens and law under the government. Therefore the production of trustworthy citizens necessitates the preservation of family structure and tradition. Without gratitude for the older generations of system of trust and respect cannot be developed. Interpersonal love and competence in relationships are developed in the home setting. The value of these relationships is important to developing an association with the past. Broken homes have been shown to correlate with delinquency and repulsion for gratuity and trust. This approach to environmental conservation mirrors ecofeminism. In ecofeminism there is a call for a more holistic and nurturing approach towards human interaction and relations with nature.

(1)    Is there a valid connection between home life and environmental conservation?

(2)    Is there a respect for tradition and ancestral practices in western culture? Has this respect been lost during a time of technological development?

(3)    How can the creation of a social contract that promotes environmental conservation also promote individual material interests?

Love as a Tactic

"Burke's view of society, as an association of the dead, the living and the unborn, carries a precious hint as to how the responsibility for future generations arises. It arises from love, and love directed towards what is unknown must arise from what is known. The future is not known, nor are the people who will inhabit it. But the past is known, and the dead, our dead, are still the objects of love and veneration. It is by expending on them some part of our care, Burke believe, that we care also for the unborn. For we plant in our hearts the transgenerational view of society that is the best guarantee that we will moderate our present appetites in the interests of those who are yet to be."
Roger Scruton, How to Think Seriously about the Planet

An important theme in Scruton's book is summed up in this paragraph: in order to do what is right for future generations, we must too respect the past; in doing this, we will be able to respect the earth as our home and all that it stands for. I am not exactly sure how Scruton intends his reader to interpret this, but I saw it as this: learn from the mistakes of our ancestors, but also from the things they did correctly in their lives and for the earth. Take these lessons and apply them to our own lives, thinking not only of ourselves but also for future generations. This theory of loving both one's ancestors and progeny as a political and environmental necessity has its merits, but also seems rather vague and irrational in modern society. Society today seems to have turned away from both respecting one's ancestors and considering the consequences of our actions with the future in mind. We live solely for ourselves, thinking seldom of our past and even less of the ramifications our lives might have for future generations of humans. We need to realize that if we continue to manipulate nature as we are doing now, we are doing an injustice to future humans. If we do not consider our lives, especially our lives in relation to the environment, with the future in mind, then our children and theirs will inherit an abused and flawed planet. I would also add to Scruton's theory a need for the love of the Earth, because it is our home; Scruton emphasizes the human attachment to home at other points throughout his novel, Love as a rational for protecting the environment seems unreasonable, but in reality it may be the most logical of all for our species, social creatures who truly thrive on interactions and relationships with others. We must protect the earth out of love, because it is our home, and because we bear the same love for humanity in the future.

Do you think love is a viable reason for protecting the earth, and if so, in what degree does it make sense in relation to more rational and scientific arguments we have encountered? Do you agree with Scruton's theory of learning from our past in order to prepare for the future?

Happy Earth Day!

Rousseau would love this!:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/03/making-art-fruit-common-denominator-video?cmpid=foodinc-fb

And this!:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/02/21/its-not-fairytale-seattle-build-nations-first-food-forest

Other Good News:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/environmental_success_stories_on_earth_day_visit_places_saved_by_conservationists.html

Interesting Group of Optimists?
http://thebreakthrough.org/

Suggesting the Impossible

Hawken's article, "A Declaration of Sustainability," is a long list of things that corporations would need to change in order to create a system of sustainable commerce. This system would help to lower unnecessary consumption and prevent further environmental degradation. It includes objectives such as an 80% reduction in energy consumption, reliance on solar income, and the creation of a self-actuating system opposed to a controlled one. While this system, if successfully implemented, would certainly stall our current rate of environmental degradation, this system is unfortunately completely impossible. Of course some of the objectives could be partially accomplished, the system overall is far to idealistic for our current society's demands and consumption rates.

Hawken says at the beginning of the article that even, "If every company on the planet were to adopt the environmental and societal practices of the best companies ... the world would still be moving towards environmental degradation and collapse." In his article he argues that the system of sustainable commerce is the only option but is this complete overhaul feasible? What aspects of this system do you think are possible and which do you think our current industrial society will never be able to accomplish?

Throwback: Invasive Species

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/florida-giant-snails/%23us%20-%20?iref=obnetwork

This is a link to a CNN article that came out earlier this week. African land snails are becoming an invasive species in Florida, and are the size of rats. They also carry rat lungworm, a harmful disease that  is potentially deadly for humans.

Thinking back to the beginning of the semester when we read Bilger's Swamp Things and Marris' Learning to Love Exotic Species, we discussed the  harmful aspects of species being planted in foreign places and how they breed quickly in their new environments. These snails can live about 9 years and lay around 1200 eggs. It's clear that this will soon become a harmful (and potentially dangerous) situation in Florida and could expand to surrounding states. The articles states that the snails could harm Florida's crops as well, therefore slithering their way into Florida's economy and general prosperity.

Are there any solutions to this issue? Do the snails (even though they're disgusting) deserve to be wiped out as a species or should they be allowed to breed? Thoughts?

True Thoughts about Nature

“We were working for nonprofit groups funded by the contributions of concerned people. Give us enough to keep food on the table, pay rent, buy a six-pack – we didn't want to get rich. But a changes occurred in the mid-1970s. Now young people seeking to work for conservation groups were career-oriented, they had relevant degrees...they saw in environmental organizations in the same light as jobs in the government or industry. One was a stepping stone to another, more powerful position later on. They were less part of a cause and more part of a profession (Foreman, Earth First!, 329).”

Foreman’s paper chronicles the factors that led to the creation of Earth First!, a radical environmentalist group. I was saddened to read the above mentioned section; putting more focus on moving up the career ladder and undermining the group's original cause. It reminded me of Aldo Leopold's warnings mentioned in A Sand County Almanac, specifically about the state of education and economic values in relation to perceptions of nature of his time. Mixing the pursuit of ecological and economic progress seems to be highly problematic, even in present day society. “Perhaps the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of a land ethic is the fact that our educational and economic system is headed away from, rather than toward, an intense consciousness of land (Also Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 223).” The problems Leopold faced at the time his book was published seemed to only have been exacerbated as generational modes of thought and values started to shift in the mid-seventies.

Do you think having a predominantly career-oriented mindset could ever be an acceptable in efforts to promote the health of the Earth? Will radical environmentalist groups and activities continue to be the go-to tactic for bringing environmental issues to the foreground?

Action vs. Thought

“The group’s admiration of monkeywrenching seems to be a legal euphemism intended to encourage others to commit acts of sabotage while evading legal responsibility. Even if this tactic is successful, it is hard to imagine how the group can avoid moral responsibility for acts, which are both criminal and morally reprehensible by normal moral or ethical standards” (336 Hargrove).

While Hargrove is a bit harsh in his response he does make a good point. Environmental policy has not been very effective or had a lot of progress but does this justify an organization encouraging dangerous and violence acts? Foreman and Abbey lack accountability. They encourage violent acts and sometimes even illegal ones, and then are able to avoid taking responsibility by using technicalities. To me, this is not ethical, if they are proud of being a radical group then they should take ownership in what they believe and what the promote. Also it is hard to tell if they will make any progress using these methods, because the population does not respond well to radical views.

This is a very hard issue to solve, because we need progress to happen in environmental policies and practices and our current methods are not working. But are these radical methods any better? I want progress but is it worth putting others at risk? Do you think action or a change in thinking is the best way to gain progress?