Philosophy Now Forum

The History of Environmental Sustainability

The issue on Sustainability leaves the impression that environmental sustainability is something new and has never been tried before.

An interesting article that might have been published in this issue is one about the History of Environmental Sustainability. It might have discussed the environmental treaties signed between nations under the auspices of the United Nation to protect rain-forests, oceans and the atmosphere. It could have mentioned that California has been a state at the forefront of environmental sustainability with its introduction of clean air legislation on car emissions and on the protection of forests. I imagine it could have talked about the science, technologies and techniques that have helped advance environmental sustainability. It might have mentioned how History has favored economic and governing systems that have made environmental sustainability possible, like open, free market societies rather than totalitarian ones, which inhibit sustainability. This article could also have mentioned the litigation between polluters and victims that has helped establish the environmental sustainability laws and policies we have today.

The article could have included one of American's first environmental conservationists, Theodore Roosevelt, who establishing the national parks system in the US, saving millions of hectors of pristine lands from development. It could also have mentioned the clean air and water Acts the Nixon administration was responsible for, and how the Bush administration tried to overturn them. It could have talked about 'acid rain' and how it was curtailed to prevent the further destruction of forests.  It also might have mentioned how the River Thames in London was eventually cleaned up. While on the subject of London it could have mentioned the end of the burning of dirty coal, which caused the death of over one thousand inhabitants in 1954 due  to respiratory problems. The article could have also mentioned a major turning point in America's growing awareness to environmental pollution when in 1968 a river in Cleveland, Ohio caught fire due to the amount of oil spilt in it over the years (Rivers were once treated like sewers). And speaking of California, it could have mentioned the movement started by residents of San Francisco in the 1950s to prevent the further industrial destruction and the filling in of its famous bay. And the growth of tourism has really increased awareness in the industry and destinations alike to the importance of environmental sustainability.

Most of this issue on Sustainability is down in the mouth, some contributers to the magazine thinking philosophy has failed the subject.

But at its core philosophy has always been about sustainability and about devising methods and systems that will sustain civilization. And there are all kinds of sustainability, all interconnected. For instance, there can't be environmental sustainability with an overall socioeconomic sustainability. We also need political sustainability in order to achieve environmental sustainability. There is also the need for scientific sustainability since it is from science that much of environmental sustainability will come. Sustainability is also a complex chicken/egg and carrot/stick issue that no single approach or change in behavior will address.

Philosophy has always been about sustainability. Philosophy stimulates thinking, which along the way squeezes out new ideas that add and are used to achieve sustainability. Some of the writers in this issue think we need a new philosophy to handle environmental sustainability. Well, the philosophy of sustainability has been evolving right under their noses. The main raison detre of philosophy is to instigate and keep the conversation going. As for the subject of environment sustainability philosophy has been on the subject and discussing it for years, not just about the environment but all those other things in human endeavor that are interwoven in it.

If anybody asks what's new in philosophy answer, the philosophy of sustainability!

Back in 1996 the environmental writer Bill Mckibben called sustainability jargon, a "buzzless buzzword". He found the idea delusional and a waste of time; a hollow sentiment. He thought the philosophy behind it would not necessary discourage anyone from consuming more or from further exploiting the Earth's resources. He disdained the terminology because it was usually coupled with imperatives like 'growth' and 'development', such as sustainable growth or sustainable development. For McKibben growth and development were incompatible with the notion, a contradiction in terms. He wrote, "Sustainability is doomed, because it does not refer to anything familiar. We understand "growth," because everything that lives grows." To his way of thinking adopting the idea would lead to the opposite - unsustainability.

Well, the philosophy of sustainability is not dead but alive and well as seen by the latest issue of PN and elsewhere. This month I read many other articles on sustainability, one in National Geographic. The idea of sustainability (adopted by the UN in the mid 1980s) didn't imploded as McKibben predicted. That's because it seems to have captured the imagination. It captures and articulates the complex situation we find ourselves in today, in a world that is pulling in two direction of maintain a life style while protecting the environment it draws on.

Back in 1996 the environmental writer Bill Mckibben called sustainability jargon, a "buzzless buzzword". He found the idea delusional and a waste of time; a hollow sentiment. He thought the philosophy behind it would not necessary discourage anyone from consuming more or from further exploiting the Earth's resources. He disdained the terminology because it was usually coupled with imperatives like 'growth' and 'development', such as sustainable growth or sustainable development. For McKibben growth and development were incompatible with the notion, a contradiction in terms. He wrote, "Sustainability is doomed, because it does not refer to anything familiar. We understand "growth," because everything that lives grows." To his way of thinking adopting the idea would lead to the opposite - unsustainability.

Well, the philosophy of sustainability is not dead but alive and well as seen by the latest issue of PN and elsewhere. This month I read many other articles on environmental sustainability, including one in National Geographic. The idea of sustainability (adopted by the UN in the mid 1980s) didn't imploded as McKibben predicted. That's because it seems to have captured the imagination. It animates the complex situation we find ourselves in today, in a world that is pulling in two direction, of maintaining a life style while protecting the environment it draws on.

Sustainability, seems to be doomed due to mans ceaseless catering to his individual selfish desires and wants, that are designed as distractors of his inevitable finality. Thus it is plain to see that the need for education is required so that he can mature in his vision of life, so that he can finally see it's true vista, in spite of his self.

It's true that none of us individuals shall get out of here alive, but ensuring that mankind will flourish within this beautifully balanced symbiosis, amongst the chaos that the universe has temporarily quieted, so as to allow for the animal being, is an extremely noble cause, that within, even in death, we shall all remain immortal. All one has to do is look at all the babies of the world, as a reflection of innocent self is revisited, revealing the wonder, amazement, curiosity, and the love of life; have we all forgotten?

Edit: Typo

Adam Smith (1723-1790) could be considered a Founding Father of Sustainability. He was a major player. The proof is in the pudding.

Smith supported and encouraged open societies and capitalist principles. The Western world was intuitive enough to adopt those principles. Others jurisdictions instead choose the communist, socialist way, eliminating competitiveness, free markets and private property. Thus, those jurisdictions did not develop the human capital, initiative or self-interest that made the West so vibrant and dynamic, and sustainable. With that lack of vibrancy the socialist economies were eventually overwhelmed and collapsed because they hadn't developed the systems or networks to maintain and sustain, like capitalist nations had.

Sustainability is about the imperative of renewal, something communist countries were inherently incapable of because they wouldn't adopt the open society and capitalist principles of Adam Smith or his kind.

Smith's "invisible hand" has really been about sustainability. I think he would agree.

"The man who saved the ozone layer from the aerosol can":

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/48b15bac ... z1pfmxdV5Z