Free HealthE Newsletter

Ethical Dimensions of Our Energy and Environmental Crises

R. McCluney

Through a series of historical social and technological developments, we as a species have developed ­­ especially in the industrialized countries ­­ a belief system and a social structure that are contributing directly to our global energy and environmental problems. The problems are not just problems of technology, they include the inappropriate ways that technology is used. Much of this stems from a value system which gives more priority to the rights of humans, and even their automobiles, than to those of nature. However, the needs of humans and the needs of nature are inextricably connected. Our current earth-depleting, environment-damaging social structure evolved from a sequence of value systems that developed naturally within western societies. However, we now find ourselves with a set of beliefs, portions of which are inappropriate and incompatible with the long-term viability of our earthly life-support system. These value systems and social structures have become major barriers to the kinds of reform that are needed to protect the earth for future generations. It is time that we add to our list of research topics, studies of the social, moral, philosophical, and ethical questions that lie at the heart of our energy and environmental crises.

INTRODUCTION

An expanding human population, and the complex, technologically based society that it has developed, threaten severe damage to the earth's biosphere, our planetary life-support system. The long-range consequences of these developments on a global scale are now becoming evident. The human species, acting as a global civilization, is depleting stored solar energy (fossil fuels) and other resources faster than they can be replaced by natural means. The waste products of our technologically based society are beginning to exceed in quantity and toxicity the ability of the planet's natural physical, chemical, and ecological systems to assimilate them. Furthermore, our expanding population is damaging or removing major portions of the world's major ecosystems, threatening much of the regenerative capacities these systems afford. Finally, I believe that we humans have disrupted the natural global process of biological evolution. By this I mean that the human introduction of new species of plants and animals, and the human-induced extinction of naturally existing species, is now occurring at a pace which is very much faster than anything the planet has experienced in its recent past (since the evolution of multicellular life forms, for example). It is as if we have taken control of evolution away from Mother Nature. This view is supported by Norman Myers in his essay, "Tropical-forest species: going, going, going...." He points out that we are eliminating the planet's genetic stock more rapidly than at any other time, except for those few cases of geologic cataclysm when a mass extinction reduced biotic diversity. "By the middle of the next century the earth seems likely to lose at least a fourth, probably a third, perhaps half, and conceivably a still larger part of the millions of species that inhabit it," he says. The current rate of human-induced species extinction is at least 1000 times greater than the "background" rate of about one per year, according to Myers. The possible consequences of this are spelled out in his essay and are very severe for human life on earth. Switching to more appropriate alternative technologies can alleviate some of these impacts, if it is carried out on a truly massive scale. Further major improvements in energy conservation, through both increased efficiency and modest lifestyle changes, can help. So can major efforts at reducing the adverse environmental impacts of technology and reducing global population growth. However, there is growing evidence that these alone will be insufficient to prevent major adverse environmental modifications, a substantially degraded biosphere for future generations of humans. We may no longer have the option available to let nature take its course and hope that this will result in the continued viability of our life-giving atmosphere and a healthy water system. Roberta Miller points out that ongoing scientific research on changes to the earth's surface and atmosphere have heretofore not adequately addressed human activities. She puts the problem this way: "Physical scientists are beginning to recognize that their knowledge of the physical processes of terrestrial or atmospheric change is incomplete without some understanding of the ways human action sets those processes in motion or modifies them. Similarly, biologists and ecologists have begun to realize that the critical element in their study of ecological systems is human action. Social scientists argue that the research task is broader than natural scientists know; we must understand patterns of behavior and interactions far more complex than the relatively straightforward nexus between individual and environment." It is clear that past approaches to environmental reform will be insufficient for future success. A new approach is clearly needed, one that addresses the root causes of the problems we are facing: inappropriate human behavior patterns and the misplaced values and belief systems that produce these behaviors. Shrader-Frechette has put it this way: "If environmental degradation were purely, or even primarily, a problem demanding scientific or technological solutions, then its resolution would probably have been accomplished by now. As it is, however, our crises of pollution and resource depletion reflect profound difficulties with some of the most basic principles in our accepted systems of values. They challenge us to assess the adequacy of those principles and, if need be, to discover a new framework for describing what it means to behave ethically or to be a moral person." It would clearly be desirable if we could wait the several decades needed to obtain a definitive understanding of all the links between human behavior and environmental degradation before we address the values and belief systems that lead to these behaviors. However, few earth scientists believe that we have that long. We must begin now examining the human value systems that are leading us as a species to threaten the life-support system of Planet Earth.

VALUES, BELIEFS, AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Values and beliefs lie at the core of human behavior. Dictionary definitions of these concepts explicitly make the connection between beliefs and behavior patterns. When our value systems become inappropriate for the situations in which we find ourselves, inappropriate behavior patterns can be expected to result. Thus, if we wish to change our environmentally destructive behaviors, both collectively and individually, we must deal with the inappropriate value systems which produce these patterns. This leads us into a study of ethics and philosophy, and more particularly the portions of those fields dealing with the relationship of humans to the rest of the natural world. To engineers, scientists, government planners, and others working to reduce the adverse impact of humans on the earth by mostly political and technological means, this emphasis on such fuzzy-seeming subjects as belief systems and philosophy may appear to be idealistic and impractical. I share these concerns. However, I don't believe that most of the changes proposed within mainstream thinking on this issue will be possible without some massive shift in belief systems. And I don't think most of the proposed solutions will be adequate. It seems quite clear that our earth cannot remain a viable platform for human life without fundamental changes in our values. At the heart of our reluctance to address the values aspects of our energy and environmental crises, I think, is the very human fear of the unknown, the unfamiliar. It is not surprising that people wish to work within their current systems of social interaction and commerce, retaining their inherited and developed systems of values and lifestyles. It can be frightening to confront too great or too rapid a change in beliefs and patterns of living and behavior. However, it is absolutely essential that we begin the process of clarifying our values and goals as a species. One of the greatest problems in doing this is that the very structure of the western socio-economic system seems to be contributing directly to the destruction of the earth's life-support system. "Business as usual" is an ethic that can destroy us if it is not substantially modified, and soon. Julia Field once put it this way: "We are using the earth as if we were the last generation." We are a short-term, crisis oriented society that needs to develop long-term, sustainable values if it is to survive. A major goal of the energy and environmental reform movement should therefore be to identify and codify an ethical framework that will support the societal and individual behaviors needed for environmental preservation, minimizing the perceived and actual sacrifices involved and leading to maximum public enthusiasm for the needed changes. I fear that these may not be compatible goals ­­ that for the new ethic to be widely accepted and quickly, it cannot be very effective. This is the challenge facing us. A great deal of work needs to be done. Reasonable steps must be taken to encourage people to examine their values in the light of current and future knowledge about human impacts on the natural environment. These steps must be followed by real and lasting behavior changes that will produce a more sustainable situation on this planet. This is only possible through some shifts in beliefs and values. Fortunately, a lot of work has already been done in this area. Books have been written, college courses have been and are being taught, and major scientific societies are beginning to address these issues. A comprehensive annotated bibliography has been provided by Thomas Berry.

SOME DEFINITIONS

Academicians studying ethics define it simply as a set of rules governing behavior. For example, to conserve electricity, we might establish an ethic about the importance of turning the lights out when leaving the room. To reduce the quantities of solid waste we produce, we might invoke an ethic aimed at increased recycling as an inherently "good" or "right" thing to do. To conserve fossil fuels, we could invoke an ethic on the need to use bicycles and mass transit. The academicians also point out that the rules of behavior must follow from one or more general principles. There are numerous sources from which to draw the guiding principles upon which our earth ethics are to be based. Scientific investigation can lead us to information about human impacts upon the biosphere and the likely long-range consequences of these impacts. Pure conservatism, as a philosophy, could lead us to avoid actions whose environmental consequences we are not sure about. The religious concept of stewardship of the earth could provide another source of the guiding principles needed to sustain life on earth. In order to continue with this discussion, I think it is important to distinguish three terms that are frequently confused in discussions of social reform.

1. Material standard of living can be defined as the quantity of goods and services consumed by an individual, per unit time.
2. Quality of life can be defined as the degree of enjoyment, satisfaction, and fulfillment achieved by an individual in the process of living.
3. Lifestyle is the general pattern of daily behaviors followed by an individual.

There is a hierarchy of needs that humans have in order to live and achieve a high quality of life. It is clear that a good quality of life is not possible if one's basic material needs are not satisfied. Above some minimum level, however, it is my contention that quality of life and material standard of living become less and less coupled as the standard of living increases. I think that the standard of living for most Americans is so high that these two concepts have become almost completely decoupled, in spite of our protestations (and materialistic behaviors) to the contrary. The point is that we do not need to continue our consuming, earth-depleting lifestyles to be happy ­­ to have a high quality of life. However, we need major shifts in our values and behavior patterns before we will be able to achieve a higher quality of life at a lower material standard of living ­­ to live better with less. It is easy to ignore the interdependence of lifestyle with the other two concepts. However, some affluent people choose lifestyles that require high material standards of living, and other affluent people choose lifestyles that lead to lower material standards of living. The difference lies in their value systems. There are other ways in which lifestyle is linked to standard of living and quality of life. Many would say that freedom to choose different lifestyles is an important prerequisite to quality of life. In spite of these statements, I believe there to be some lifestyle changes with little impact on material standard of living or quality of life. On the other hand, if we choose a lifestyle which is in conflict with our beliefs, quality of life suffers as a result of this conflict. Our beliefs, and the resulting lifestyles, can be in conflict with the (external) physical, social, and environmental situations in which we find ourselves. This also can lead to diminished quality of life, since our daily behaviors are in conflict with the realities of the world in which we live and the resulting environmental degradations can affect us personally. I see this as a cause of much mental anguish and of the energy and environmental crises we now face. The society around us is changing faster than many of us can keep up with. We are being called upon to adopt more appropriate value systems faster than we can comfortably do. So we search for rationalizations to deny our need to change. Or we try not to admit that current societal beliefs, such as "maximize short-term gain", are destroying our futures. However, change we must, or we will destroy the very basis of our existence. Some people have difficulty accepting this statement. They generally believe, for instance, that technology will somehow advance to such a state that we will be able to accommodate current and even future population levels. This is not something that is easily proved or disproved, but I am convinced that it is a rationalization used to keep us from having to confront fundamental changes in our beliefs about what it is to live, prosper, and be fulfilled. Let us accept ideally that we cannot continue on indefinitely as we have, destroying major portions of our life-support system, increasing the human population indefinitely, and increasing the average global standard of living. In this case it should be obvious that an earth ethic most desperately needs to be developed. We very badly need a set of guiding principles and rules of behavior to help us act so as to support our continued survival. Of course, survival alone is not enough. It must be at an acceptable overall standard of living and with a high quality of life.

EARTH ETHICS

At the core of ethics lie the concepts of worth and rights. In his history of environmental ethics, Roderick Frazier Nash presents two diagrams, showing his view of how ethical concepts and the concept of rights have developed and are developing. He argues that there has been and will continue to be an expansion of the human acceptance of the rights of others.

Nash suggests that the trend is toward an idea that morality should include the relationship of humans to nature. Nash identifies an ongoing expansion of concern, for the natural rights of a growing number of entities, from a limited group of humans, to the rights of all humans, to those of parts of nature and, finally, to all of nature. At the ultimate end of the evolutionary sequence identified by Nash is a belief, supported by authors in a variety of disciplines, that all manifestations of the natural universe derive from the same basic entity. This brings us then to the idea that all parts of this entity have inherent and equal rights and worthiness and deserve moral consideration. Thus all aspects of the natural world have rights and deserve protection from abuse according to this philosophy. It remains to be seen how much farther the human species will progress toward this point. This brings us to the core of current thinking on earth ethics. According to Nash: "Of course, nature does not demand rights, and some moral philosophers even question whether anything so general as the 'rights of nature' can exist at all. But...others use the term confidently. At the same time they recognize that wolves and maples and mountains do not petition for their rights. Human beings are the moral agents who have the responsibility to articulate and defend the rights of the other occupants of the planet. Such a conception of rights means that humans have duties or obligations toward nature. Environmental ethics involves people extending ethics to the environment by the exercise of self-restraint." Nash is aware of the controversial nature of these ideas. He says that "Ideas like these, to be sure, are on the far frontier of moral history, environmental ethics is revolutionary; it is arguably the most dramatic expansion of morality in the course of human thought. ... in recent years many people have found compelling the notion that nonhuman life and nonliving matter have moral standing. The majority still regards this idea as incredible. But historians are aware that the same incredulity met the first proposals for granting independence to American colonists, freeing the slaves, respecting Indian rights, integrating schools, and adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution." John Stuart Mill once said that "every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption." According to Nash, "What happens in the process, Christopher Stone reminds us, is that the unthinkable becomes conventional ­­ sometimes gradually and peacefully through legislative and legal processes, as Stone proposed, but often, violently." At a workshop on environmental ethics, Dr. Gary Varner identified four categories of earth ethics that he felt are being used to justify various actions by individuals, by business people, by environmentalists, by researchers, and by governmental agencies dealing with environmental problems. Using his words: Anthropocentrism is the view that, when it comes to making decisions about the environment, only the interests of human beings matter. An anthropocentric defense of environmental preservation would appeal to or focus on the ways in which environmental preservation benefits human beings while environmental degradation harms humans. So if we argue that an endangered species ought to be preserved because people think it is beautiful, or because people are happy to know that it exists, or because it might someday be useful to people, we would be arguing anthropocentrically. Sentientism [is the view that] all and only conscious creatures count. [Sentientists] argue that if all human beings have rights (including newborn infants and the severely retarded), then so too do some animals, since intellectual capacities of a normal mammal or bird appear to surpass those of [these humans). To be sentient is to be conscious of pleasure and pain, [so these people claim] that all creatures who can feel pleasure and pain have interests to be considered. Animals with very rudimentary nervous systems ­­ insects, for instance ­­ may not be conscious at all, and therefore may not deserve moral consideration in this view. Biocentric Individualism [includes] all living things, including the "lower" animals and all plants [in the group of organisms that] have interests and deserve moral consideration. Holism [includes] the entire biotic community, taken as a whole system, [in what counts and should be protected]. The most famous example of holism is the "land ethic" espoused by Aldo Leopold in A Sand County Almanac. When Leopold writes that "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community," he is focussing on the welfare or interest of a system of living things, rather than on the welfare of the individuals who are members of that system. A view like this is called holism because the whole is being taken to be somehow greater than the sum of its parts. There is conflict among the proponents of the four different categories of earth ethics, both within and outside of the environmental movement. Arguments over which of the above earth ethics is the "correct" one threaten to dilute the energy of the reform movement and fractionate it, reducing its effectiveness. I do not believe that much effort should be wasted in these pursuits. The biggest argument seems to be between the anthropocentrists and the holists. However, if one takes anthropocentrism to its logical conclusion one would have to accept that humans are totally dependent upon the ecological viability of the entire biotic system and the physical resources upon which this system depends. Thus, the goals and methods of the two groups should merge and become one. That they have not yet done so is another problem inhibiting concerted action in dealing with our multiple crises. Apparently the problem is that we do not yet have sufficient scientific evidence to show all the detailed connections between minute elements of the biotic community and the survival and quality of life of the human species. To what extent, for example, does human survivability depend upon the survivability of the many species of insects living in Amazonia? There is as yet no definitive answer to this question and many others like it. Thus the anthropocentrists are not yet ready to become holists and vice versa. This then, is an area where research scientists and engineers could be very effectively employed ­­ establishing the connections between human survival and the preservation of all aspects of the biotic community, as well as the earth's physical systems (air, earth, water) on which they depend.

NEW RESEARCH NEEDS

It is clear that we now have two areas of needed research. First is a search for all the ways humans depend upon the earth's natural systems for survival. Second is a detailed examination of the specific ways that human behavior is disrupting these systems.

Many knowledgeable people say that we have so altered the planet's natural systems already that we have put ourselves in charge of operating the planet. We are now the pilots of Spaceship Earth and we had better learn how to guide it successfully through the hazards that face it. The next question is whether we have enough information, and the ability, on a global basis, to operate our spaceship correctly. I fear that we don't even know what "correct" operation really is. What should the goals of our planetary operation be? Viability for the entire biotic community, or of only those parts of it that humans clearly need to support an acceptable quality of life? This brings up other vexing questions, such as what is an acceptable quality of life, and what members of the global human population deserve to have it? If we accept this goal for all living humans, what are the implications? Is this even physically possible, given the declining carrying capacity of the earth? I believe that much new research needs to be pursued in each of these areas if we are to develop a sustainable society capable of surviving into the distant future. We don't have to wait until all this research is completed to see that human civilization is having a large impact on the global life-support system right now, and that major, global human-behavior changes are needed. This then opens up another area of research: research specifically addressing human behavior modification ­­ what stimulates it, what inhibits it, and what sustains it.

AIDS AND EARTH ETHICS ­­ BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION STRATEGIES

"What has AIDS got to do with Earth Ethics?" one might ask. Well, a lot. First of all, there is some evidence that overpopulation of the planet, coupled with a very mobile society, promotes the spread of viral infections faster than we can develop effective defenses. This was pointed out by Anne and Paul Ehrlich in 1971. Their predictions seem to be coming true as the AIDS epidemic spreads rapidly and scientists have trouble finding effective defense mechanisms. Secondly, AIDS is a clear and immediate threat to society. Amelioration of its consequences at the present time depends exclusively upon drastic changes in the compulsive behavior patterns of many people. Because of the magnitude of the threat, the U. S. government is spending $480 million per year, trying to educate the public and prevent the spread of the virus. Mind-altering drug use is another behavioral problem with rapidly growing adverse impacts on society. Scientists and social engineers are embarked upon a grand experiment to get large numbers of people to change some very unhealthy behaviors. The methods they use and how well they succeed should be of great interest to environmentalists and earth ethics scholars. There are other parallels. One might say that the current growth-is-good, more-growth-is-better, earth-depleting, economic system is as addictive as drugs and as compulsive as sex. It may be just as difficult to change earth-depleting behavior patterns as it is to stop drug abuse. According to a recent article on AIDS-related social engineering in Science: It seems that altering deeply ingrained behaviors is not like flipping a switch. Some individuals are recalcitrant, a few will never change, many do not even believe that they are at risk, and others need a lot of help," says Thomas Coates of the University of California at San Francisco. Researchers know that humans are capable of dramatic behavior modifications. But the scientists are not really sure why. Nor are they in agreement about how to speed up the process.... In order to change a behavior, the experts say, people must first recognize the fact that they are at risk; then they must be told how best to navigate around the danger.... They must then believe in their own ability to change and in the value of the new and improved conduct.... Finally, the new behaviors must become the 'normative' ones in the community, so that they are constantly reinforced.... In the business of behavior change, researchers say that these community norms are the most important thing of all. "One of the biggest problems is that information doesn't do much," says Nathan Maccoby of the Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention. "In order for the information... to begin working, the threat... must be perceived as real, immediate, close to home. The problem is that people deny risk." "People are very creative when it comes to reasons why their own risk is not high," says Neil Weinstein of Rutgers University.... "Unfortunately, something must break into a person's own life before he'll do anything about it," says Howard Leventhal of Rutgers. The real trick, say public health workers, is to get people's attention focused on behavior modification before rates of [personal disaster] become such that [the problem] is nearly impossible to ignore. But there is a great deal of debate about exactly how to do this. These are not very encouraging words for those of us concerned about altering the earth-depleting behavior patterns of humans. The ultimate threats are real but distant in time and space. In modern industrialized societies we are separated from the environmental consequences of our actions by complex and elaborate systems of manufacture, distribution, and waste disposal. "Out of sight ­­ out of mind" seems to be the current motto. Without direct feedback on the consequences of our actions, how are we to convince ourselves that there is a real and present danger out there, that it is immediate and threatening? According to the Science article, AIDS researchers are finding that the most effective factor in achieving behavior change lies not with working on a relatively small number of individuals. "If we think about changing behavior one by one, the epidemic will be over before we're through. You've got to change community norms and standards," says Larry Bye, founder of a Stop AIDS project in San Francisco. Perhaps this provides the key to a possibly successful strategy. Although accurate information is a necessary first step to environmental reform, it is in itself insufficient to stimulate the changes that are needed. We must also help people see the linkages between their actions and the destruction of the earth's life-support system. (An example of this linkage can be found in the purchase of a hamburger at a fast-food chain, if the beef was grown on deforested land in Arizona and the foam plastic container produces air pollution in its manufacture and ground and possibly air pollution in its disposal.) They must be helped then to use this as an incentive for examining their belief systems. If we can cause massive changes in beliefs then the political changes required for the needed behavior changes will take place naturally.

SOLAR ENERGY, ENERGY CONSERVATION, AND EARTH ETHICS

The above discussion may appear to have departed considerably from the research and promotion of widespread conversion from nonrenewable energy sources to renewables and conservation. I would like to try and bring these back together, to show how energy and ethics are connected, to make the connection more understandable. The motivation for most mainstream energy resource work is utilitarian, it results from knowledge that nonrenewables cannot last indefinitely and that they tend to pollute more than most renewables. Both the resource depletion and the pollution are bad for humans. Thus, so the argument goes, humans should reduce their dependence upon nonrenewable energy sources. This is a purely anthropocentric argument. The work is done solely for the benefit of humans. Some narrow the argument even further, into a nationalistic justification: it would free a given country from dependence upon resources from outside that country's border, without any reference to the environmental issues involved. One result of this perspective is that funding for energy research drops when there are short-term increases in nonrenewable energy availability. To individuals with a more global and long-term view, this is inappropriate. Of course there is more to it than this. We are beginning to realize that large per capita nonrenewable energy (and energy-based material) consumption patterns are generally injurious to the earth's life-support system. Ozone depletion and global warming are two currently prominent examples. The connection between nonrenewable energy use and the destruction of nature is beginning to be understood. Now we need to take this understanding a bit further. The processes of providing energy and energy-intensive products all have adverse environmental impacts, even when renewable energy sources are being used. The renewable sources are thought to generally have less impacts, but the impacts are there. So, in addition to switching from nonrenewables to renewables, we need to reduce the impacts of the new sources and to reduce human dependence on them. Many people believe that we must go still further and reduce our per capita energy consumption patterns (or greatly reduce the human population) to insure a viable life-support system for future generations. Some of these changes can be accomplished by purely technological means, and Amory Lovins has extensive and detailed information that shows how to go about it. Implementation of the Lovins recommendations will require some changes in beliefs and societal structures, but most of his recommendations are justified on purely conventional economic bases. These are inherently anthropocentric arguments. It is becoming clearer, however, that purely technological changes will be insufficient. Human behavior changes will be needed, not only to implement the proposed technological changes but to achieve needed changes that technology and economics alone cannot accomplish. We can try and make more energy-efficient houses and offices, but if we keep building them farther and farther apart, transportation energy costs will eat up building energy savings. We can switch to biodegradable plastics, to minimize the environmental impacts of their disposal, but we will still be using energy-intensive nonrenewable raw materials to manufacture them. Thus, human behaviors, and the corresponding value systems, are necessary components of an effective energy policy. It is important to examine how inappropriate belief systems, in the individual, and in the society at large, produce behaviors that are inconsistent with an earth-sustaining energy policy. Then the beliefs that lead to these behaviors can be addressed by the means indicated previously. Central to this work is a need to avoid narrowly-based anthropocentrism. We must do what we do for the whole earth's ecological system, not necessarily because non-human species have rights, but because human interests are also at stake. Finally, energy planners, economists, researchers, and businessmen are already embarked upon a massive program of social engineering, attempting to make drastic changes in the ways humans obtain and use energy. Denying this fact, or denying that there are ethical considerations to be made in the process, is clearly irresponsible. Paraphrasing Strong and Rosenfield, we have two choices before us, to begin now to seek guidelines for meeting the fundamental problem of how to protect the world's physical resources from ultimate exhaustion, or wait until drastic change is forced upon us by the severity of the problems we have helped to create. "We can adopt new social and environmental ethics now or wait until human degradation and environmental deterioration threaten our very existence. Whichever path we elect to follow, we must recognize that the future depends upon our present decisions, and that neither as individuals nor as a society can we escape responsibility for them."

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I have attempted to make a case for the study of ethics, in the context of a planetary life-support system that is under attack by one animal species on that planet: homo sapiens. I believe that every person on earth who has enough food to eat and adequate shelter must become familiar with this subject and seek to develop a personal earth ethic, one that will contribute to the protection of our life-support system, the biosphere. In order to support our attempts at individual reform, we must join with others in local, regional, national, and international networks to derive the strengths from each other that will be needed to make the desired changes. I believe that every organization should set aside some resources (money, time, and/or personnel) to pursue an organizational earth ethic that makes sense in the context of that organization's interests and mode of operation. This should then be turned into a plan of action, a phased implementation of some organizational guidelines or procedures. If these efforts will be undertaken, I think a better world can result, a world which is capable of providing for a sustainably high quality of life for its human inhabitants. In spite of our many problems, the future looks very bright. It is an exciting time to be alive. We are on the threshold of a social, psychological, and spiritual breakthrough like none other experienced in the history of this earth or of our species. Let us embrace these new ideas with optimism and hope.

REFERENCES

Footnotes

Disclaimer

Path: Home>Education>Energy Information>Ethical Dimensions of Our Energy and Environmental Crises