Over the next few Fridays (or whenever
an article is finished), Awkward Mixture will be publishing a new
Political series focused on the Environment. In college, I earned an
undergraduate degree in Environmental Science, which qualifies me to
speak about the subject as much as visiting a aquarium occasionally
makes one a certified Marine Biologist.
In the United States today, many people
fail to accept environmental truths, which scientists hold as nearly
incontrovertible. Pollution is warming the planet, contributing to
death through respiratory illness (and cancer), and ecosystems are
being destroyed by deforestation and overpopulation. Citizens of the
United States fail to accept these facts because of guilt, a feeling
of helpless, and the ethical implications of their actions.
One might believe these issues relating
to the environment are only recently imposed restrictions on human
behavior but that is not true. Before humanity designed many of its
innovative means of developing and supporting an expanded population,
people were undoubtedly debating the questions revitalized by modern
topics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently addressed the topic which
many young people have voiced, “There’s scientific consensus that
the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does
lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still
have children?”
There is almost too much to unpack in
this statement. Climate change will alter the environment by warming
most of the planet, and creating more unpredictable weather patterns.
But scientists are not making a value judgment on whether life will
be worth living, or if people will be less happy. Even with these
changes, many people in the United States will live in superior
conditions than people currently do across the globe. Is the
statement also considering whether additional children places further
stress upon the global ecosystem? Long ago humanity was concerned
whether the local environment, could support another belly to feed.
International trade largely eliminated the concern whether a
population can be sustained by local food production. Today the
population concerns are global, more related to resource consumption
excluding food. Instead of, “Can the community produce enough food
for my child to survive?”, United States citizens think, “Can the
Earth support another car driving, energy consuming, human being?”
It is possible to rephrase AOC's question more clearly. “Do parents
want to deliver children into a world with ecological devastation
likely in their lifetimes?”
When people reject these questions
scornfully, it's because they don't understand the underlying
premise. They think, how can an activity which has been considered a
virtue for so long, (having children) become ethically questionable?
There's always been debate about the proper number of children and
whether a massive family was selfish or selfless, but today's
citizens are questioning whether even one or two children are
acceptable. This question has merit because two human driven
phenomenon have converged, and synthesized into a potential global
catastrophe. Humanity has birthed over 7.6
billion people, and achieved control of (and integrated) an
ecologically devastating technology. Independently these two facts
mean little, but together they have fused into a violate cocktail,
and humanity is either near, or already passed a threshold. Beneath
this unknown limit, the global ecosystem could repair the damage
done, but beyond this ceiling ecological systems began (will begin)
to fail.
At some point within the last century,
having an inordinate number of children, combined with running one
internal combustion engine for every five people (among many other
technological devices inflicting further damage), began threatening
the global climate, and thereby rendering these two actions (and
others) ethically questionable. Some citizens might have always
believed that bearing ten children and driving an SUV were morally
wrong, but if only two people existed on the Earth, then ten children
and two SUVs (however they managed to acquire them) weren't much of
an issue.
There are still those who recoil when
others introduce the topic of children into a debate involving the
environment. They need their question answered, which in it's
simplest form is: How can it be wrong to have children?
The best philosopher for examining this
paradox of ethical transformation between past and present situations
is Immanuel Kant, particularly his Categorical Imperative.
Kant described his Categorical
Imperative in one sentence:
Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a
universal law.
Though scholars have spent whole books
debating and explaining this sentence, Awkward Mixture doesn't have
time or space to waste. The sentence means that one should only act
in a way that, if everyone acted the same way, their intended outcome
would be fulfilled.
Example: When traffic is bad on the
highway, I exit at the off ramps and enter again immediately to
travel faster.
One, the person's situation. The
highway is packed, and therefore slow.
Two, their action. They will avoid
some of the traffic by exiting and entering the highway at every
possible opportunity.
Three, their goal. They will travel
faster.
But does this conform to the
Categorical Imperative?
No. This does not fulfill the CI fails
the described plan only succeeds if one (or very few) person performs
this task. If everyone attempted this solution during rush-hour they
would clog the on and off ramps in addition to the highway. Since
the plan would not achieve the stated goal if everyone performed the
action, the proposal is not a Categorical Imperative. Since it is
not a Categorical Imperative it is not an ethical action. No one
should implement this idea.
Reapplying the Categorical Imperative
to complex subjects introduces difficulty. How would one even craft
a statement about children?
A multi-part example: When I am married
(When I am young enough, When I want one) I will have X children, because I am married
(I am lonely, I love children, I live in a society which encourages
me to have children).
A car is a bit simpler, much like the
highway. I need to travel places, so I will buy a car, and then I
can travel quickly, under my own decision, without anyone else's
assistance.
But these statements miss the larger
issue. If everyone in the world drove a car, used a computer, or ate
meat, producing the amount of energy required would release an
enormous volume of pollutants into the environment. Each person's
contribution would remain infinitesimal, but as a combined tonnage,
it would be unthinkable, and immediately devastating.
The same is true of children, with some
differences. There is an environmentally suitable number of
children. Is it 1 or 2, or some other number like .5, 1.5, or 2.2?
These are numbers worth research and debate, but hopefully the reader
can see why any number more than a bit over 2 children per couple
fails the Categorical Imperative, rendering it both unethical and
environmentally dangerous. Taken to absurdity it's simple to
recognize why too many children violate the Categorical Imperative.
Parents who decide to have ten children are committing to an action
which, if everyone made the same choice, would lead to ecological
collapse and a greatly reduced standard of living worldwide.
The purpose of this article is not to
judge anyone. I am writing this on my personal computer, instead of
a public PC available at my local library. Today I drove an hour in
a car I own, and participated in a variety of other activities which
violated the Categorical Imperative. It is nearly impossible to live
in the United States without violating the CI. The only consolation,
to relive everyone the immense pressure of guilt, is the realization
that no one can be enough of an ascetic to prevent environmental
damage on their own. It is in no one's individual economic interest
to stop using their modern tools. Society needs to be realigned to
the modern issue of ecological damage, to allow citizens to live
according to an Environmental Categorical Imperative that they don't
need to violate every day to fit into society. Over the next few
articles Awkward Mixture will delve deeper into environmental issues
and possible solutions.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment