- Email: [email protected]
Eco-environmentalism vs human environmentalism
Environment
Pergamon
Intematicmal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 253-254, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights tescrved 0160-4120/95 $9.50 + .OO
0160-4120(95)00029-l
EDITORIAL
ECO-ENVIRONMENTALISM ENVIRONMENTALISM
VS HUMAN
In several previous editorials of this journal, the distinction between scientific environmentalism and political environmentalism was highlighted. It may be recalled that scientific environmentalists rely upon science as the basis of decisions. In contrast to this group, political environmentalists rely upon ideology to promote their environmental goals. According to this distinction, methods used to achieve a goal are different. However, such a distinction does not indicate the goals of either one of the two groups. There are those who argue that the goal of environmental protection is self-evident. The goal is to protect the environment. Unfortunately, “environment” is not easily definable. There is an agreement that environment includes atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and biosphere, However, there is no agreement on how to compare atmospheric pollution to geospheric pollution and how to quantify the loss of one insect species with the pollution of a river. Many advocacy groups have suggested that any change in the existing air, water, or soil is unacceptable. They have also argued that every species must be protected regardless of cost. A key issue in protection of the environment is the role of humans. There has been a general agreement in the medical community that human life must be protected and that it is perfectly acceptable to sacrify animal life if it leads to protection of human life, provided it is consistent with ethical requirements of animal welfare laws that have been enacted in almost every country. This practice would indicate that protection of human life would be the most important criterion in environmental protection. In many countries of the world, the word “ecology” is used to imply protection of the environment. Within the scientific community, ecologists have the right to define the principles and areas of coverage of their discipline. The Ecological Society of America has struggled for a number of years to deal with the definition of ecology, and comparable societies elsewhere are likely to have persued the same goal. An arguably reasonable definition
(at least the one found in most lexica) indicates ecology to be a branch of biology consisting of the relationship between organisms and their environment. According to this definition, human health is outside the field of ecology. This definition would imply that those who advocate ecological protection consider humans as an integral part of the ecosysytem, giving humans the same right of survival as other species. According to this philosophy, it is the species that must be protected rater than individual menbers of the species. This distinction provides a clear difference between the two groups of environmentalists. The goal of the ecoenvironmentalists is to protect the biospere from human interference. The eco-environmentalists appear to accept adverse effects of events that were not caused by human interference. For example, wild fires are considered by eco-environmentalists to be a “natural phenomenon” and helpful to the “rejuvenation” of forests. However, the same forest fire caused by human activity would be unacceptable. The argument is that fires have happened since the earth became hospitable to living organisms and “nature” has a way of recovering. In contrast to the eco-environmentalists, human environmentalists believe that the protection of human health should be the primary goal of environmental protection. According to human environmentalists, wise use of natural resources, protection of species, air, water, and soil are necessary for human habitation. Human environmentalists actively participate in the eradication of pests that are detrimental to human health directly and indirectly. They accept and encourage industrial development if it is done properly and consistent with the protection of human health and wise use of natural resources. The difference between these two groups is significant and the core of disagreement among various political parties in a number of industrial countries. The scientific community has, up to this date, sided with the human environmentalism. Most industrial countries and international organizations spend large sums of money to 253
254
protect human health. Furthermore, the medical profession in most countries has taken an oath to save human life. The human environmentalists have made their case. Determination of societal goals is not the domain of the scientific community. If society through the electoral process decides that either one of the two approaches
Editorial
should be the goal, the scientific community is likely to follow. However, proponents of the two groups must articulate their respective goals and give society the opportunity to choose. A. Alan Moghissi
Pergamon
Intematicmal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 253-254, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights tescrved 0160-4120/95 $9.50 + .OO
0160-4120(95)00029-l
EDITORIAL
ECO-ENVIRONMENTALISM ENVIRONMENTALISM
VS HUMAN
In several previous editorials of this journal, the distinction between scientific environmentalism and political environmentalism was highlighted. It may be recalled that scientific environmentalists rely upon science as the basis of decisions. In contrast to this group, political environmentalists rely upon ideology to promote their environmental goals. According to this distinction, methods used to achieve a goal are different. However, such a distinction does not indicate the goals of either one of the two groups. There are those who argue that the goal of environmental protection is self-evident. The goal is to protect the environment. Unfortunately, “environment” is not easily definable. There is an agreement that environment includes atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and biosphere, However, there is no agreement on how to compare atmospheric pollution to geospheric pollution and how to quantify the loss of one insect species with the pollution of a river. Many advocacy groups have suggested that any change in the existing air, water, or soil is unacceptable. They have also argued that every species must be protected regardless of cost. A key issue in protection of the environment is the role of humans. There has been a general agreement in the medical community that human life must be protected and that it is perfectly acceptable to sacrify animal life if it leads to protection of human life, provided it is consistent with ethical requirements of animal welfare laws that have been enacted in almost every country. This practice would indicate that protection of human life would be the most important criterion in environmental protection. In many countries of the world, the word “ecology” is used to imply protection of the environment. Within the scientific community, ecologists have the right to define the principles and areas of coverage of their discipline. The Ecological Society of America has struggled for a number of years to deal with the definition of ecology, and comparable societies elsewhere are likely to have persued the same goal. An arguably reasonable definition
(at least the one found in most lexica) indicates ecology to be a branch of biology consisting of the relationship between organisms and their environment. According to this definition, human health is outside the field of ecology. This definition would imply that those who advocate ecological protection consider humans as an integral part of the ecosysytem, giving humans the same right of survival as other species. According to this philosophy, it is the species that must be protected rater than individual menbers of the species. This distinction provides a clear difference between the two groups of environmentalists. The goal of the ecoenvironmentalists is to protect the biospere from human interference. The eco-environmentalists appear to accept adverse effects of events that were not caused by human interference. For example, wild fires are considered by eco-environmentalists to be a “natural phenomenon” and helpful to the “rejuvenation” of forests. However, the same forest fire caused by human activity would be unacceptable. The argument is that fires have happened since the earth became hospitable to living organisms and “nature” has a way of recovering. In contrast to the eco-environmentalists, human environmentalists believe that the protection of human health should be the primary goal of environmental protection. According to human environmentalists, wise use of natural resources, protection of species, air, water, and soil are necessary for human habitation. Human environmentalists actively participate in the eradication of pests that are detrimental to human health directly and indirectly. They accept and encourage industrial development if it is done properly and consistent with the protection of human health and wise use of natural resources. The difference between these two groups is significant and the core of disagreement among various political parties in a number of industrial countries. The scientific community has, up to this date, sided with the human environmentalism. Most industrial countries and international organizations spend large sums of money to 253
254
protect human health. Furthermore, the medical profession in most countries has taken an oath to save human life. The human environmentalists have made their case. Determination of societal goals is not the domain of the scientific community. If society through the electoral process decides that either one of the two approaches
Editorial
should be the goal, the scientific community is likely to follow. However, proponents of the two groups must articulate their respective goals and give society the opportunity to choose. A. Alan Moghissi