Earth Day Reflections

 

Yesterday was Earth Day. Normally I don’t care.

But friend Xerxes wrote a commemorative column. It prompts some interesting questions.

He condemns the automobile on the grounds that it sacrifices the lives of thousands of young men and women every year. Presumably he means in road accidents. But couldn’t you also say that about aspirin? Or water? Or anything you could name? 

You need a cost-benefit analysis. Surprisingly few people seem to understand the concept. A telling example is the surprising resistance during this pandemic to getting vaccinated. Many would rather risk a one-in-one hundred chance of dying of CIVID to avoid a one-in-a-million chance of dying of the vaccine.

More generally, Xerxes laments that the material progress we have made, notably in medicine, has not been shared by other species—that the Suzuki Foundation estimates, by computer modelling, that 150 species go extinct every day.

Here we have to ask what our ultimate goals and values are. If it is to improve the number and longevity of all life forms, we have a problem. The very medical progress Xerxes lauds is at their expense. It comes in large part from killing bacteria and parasites. 

If we want to feed the poor, that too comes at the expense of other species. Because that is what they eat. And, if we multiply and extend the life of any other given species, that comes at the expense of whatever species they prey on or displace for their sustenance.

Trying to make the welfare of all species our concern seems vain. That seems to be the fundamental premise of the environmental movement; yet no action of ours other than blowing up the planet can really make things either better or worse given that standard. 

The traditional premise is that we focus on what pleases God, and what improves the lives of our fellow humans: the greatest good for the greatest number. Beyond that, to avoid unnecessary cruelty to other species.

Yet Xerxes, and most environmentalists, as opposed to animal rights activists, seem not to be concerned with the suffering of other living beings, exactly. Rather, with the possible extinction of species. Why is this more important? If species are more significant than individuals, wouldn’t it follow, in human terms, that corporations are more important than people? If not, why the difference?

Xerxes writes:

“We need more housing. But endless 5000-square-foot single-family residences on bulldozer-flattened subdivisions are not the answer.”

To make such a statement, I think one needs to propose a better alternative. People have moved to subdivisions because it was the most affordable family housing. Kids have a better life if they have a yard to play in. Where would you have them go instead?

Xerxes concludes by lamenting that all his efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle are negated by population growth. 

Here again, we have to establish what the goal is. If it is “the greatest good for the greatest number,” then human population growth is a self-evident good. If it is not, for whom or for what value are we recycling and conserving resources?

If you cannot figure out the answer, comment. I can help.