home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:07:12 GMT
- Subject: The Real "Right to Life"
- Message-ID: <149180409@hpindda.cup.hp.com>
- Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpcss01!hpindda!alanm
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Lines: 62
-
- Brian Yoder writes:
- >The fact is that people are morally entitled to control their lives and the
- >product of their work and to trade and coorperate VOLUNTARILY with one another.
- >This is the case regardless of how severely the government may trample on such
- >rights...they are still rights.
-
- The fact is that future generations of humans are as morally entitled to a
- biologically rich planet and a healthy environment as we are. That alone
- places constraints on market mechanisms since future generations are not
- represented in present markets. Protection of their rights is a clearly
- legitimate -- indeed, *mandatory* -- role of government. Nor is this in any
- way inconsistent with the views of the Founding Fathers, though of course
- they could not have forseen that there would come a time when one generation
- could so materially degrade the prospects for all subsequent generations.
-
- A natural extension of the rights of posterity occurs as the ethical time
- scale moves from social time (centuries) to ecological and evolutionary
- time (millennia). In this extension -- called *ecocentrism* -- the biosphere
- itself acquires "rights" or, equivalently, we acquire moral obligations to
- ensure its continued healthy functioning. These obligations place the
- ultimate constraint on human civilization, one which ensures that not only
- do *we* have a "right to life", but also all future humanity has a "right
- to life" -- and a right to a world which can support life as well as it
- can for us. That in turn requires that all biological diversity have a
- "right to life" -- not an *individual* right, but a collective right.
- That collective "right to life" of all species is more fundamental than
- the individual "right to life" of humans, for the simple reason that the
- latter could not exist without the former: human life depends on the
- functioning of the biosphere.
-
- Talk of "rights" always sets off fundamentalists like Yoder, who will
- immediately (and with almost no individual variation) tell you exactly
- which rights "really" exist and which don't. Hence it is better to speak
- in terms of moral obligations or responsibilities than "rights". To say
- that the biosphere has a "right" to continued healthy ecological and
- evolutionary functioning is to say that *we* have a moral obligation not
- to prevent it from doing so, and indeed to restore its opportunities --
- to restore ecosystems -- enough to ensure this health.
-
- These "rights" arise not from the mystical aprioristic pseudologic of
- _Atlas Shrugged_ and other great works of metaphysics, but from the
- biological requirements of the continued functioning of ecosystems, and
- the fact that humanity has always depended on that functioning, and
- that we have no right to take it away from our descendents -- not even
- if we knew that they could survive without it, which we certainly don't
- know.
-
- Yoder seems to think that what is legitimate for a government arises
- from rights and ethics. That is the one idea I agree with -- only his
- list of rights is *not* based on the requirements of life in the biological
- sense, only on protecting the consumption of the current generation.
-
- That is not the reading of Jefferson's "right to life" which is informed
- with what biology has learned about the ecological basis of life.
- Jefferson was an avid naturalist. If he were alive today, I'm sure he'd
- be an ecocentric.
-
- ------------
- Alan McGowen
-
- "By the faces we show each other and to the world... we force the spring."
- -- Bill Clinton
-