The Ethics of Sustainability

Jean KazezPhilosophy Department

SMU

Sustainable developmentSustainable fishing

Sustainable agricultureSustainable consumption

Sustainable miningSustainable drillingSustainable forestry

What does it mean?

Sustainable X-ing =Doing X in such a way that future people

will have “enough and as good”*

* Phrase from John Locke, 1690

If sustainable then innocent?

Sustainable graffitiSustainable tiger hunting

Sustainable whalingSustainable cannibalism

If it’s permissible to do X at all, then we are obligated to do X sustainably

But why are we obligated? Are we really?

2012 2025 2050 2075 2100

X

X = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.

1. Why must we leave as much and as good for future people? What if that requires us to sacrifice money, work, time, satisfaction, etc.?

2012 2025 2050 2075 2100

XX = building, farming, fishing, mining, drilling, etc.

2. Must we sacrifice just as much for people in the far future as for people in the near future?

Survey

You are given $1000 that you must donate to future people. What amounts will you give to the people of each year? (Make sure numbers add up to 1000!)

2025205020752100

yr2025 yr2050 yr2075 yr21000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Student9Student8Student7Student6Student5Student4Student3Student2Student1

Allocations of 9 students in Environmental Ethics class

The Debate about Duties to Future People

Defenders – we must give the same consideration to future people as to people living right now.

Discounters – there are good reasons to sacrifice less for future people than for people living right now. The further in the future, the less we should sacrifice.

Defenders of Future People

• Students prejudiced.• Prejudice against future people is like

prejudice against other disadvantaged groups.• We are all susceptible to this prejudice.• We even feel it toward our own future selves.

Defenders of Future People

• We are like people at a party saying “first come first served!”

• Earth’s resources belong to all, no matter when they “arrive”. Locke (1690): “the earth and all inferior creatures” are “common to all men”

• Locke: we can appropriate resources by “mixing our labor” with them, but only if we leave “enough and as good” for others (present and future).

Defenders of Future People

• Guardians of the Future – Future people are entitled to political representation

Discounters of Future People

• Discount means “should sacrifice less for them” – not “should totally dismiss.”

• The further in the future, the more we should discount; 2025 vs. 2100.

• Economics: social discount rate.

Social Discount Rate(1.4% vs. 6%)

John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American, 2008

Why discount future people?Some spooky reasons

• Most future people are non-existent. Why should we make sacrifices for non-existent people?

• Our policies, however reckless, will alter who exists in the future. Whoever exists will most likely be glad they exist, so they won’t have any complaint about our policies.

Why discount future people?More spooky reasons

• God will provide … maybe even a second planet!

• The end is nigh – eat drink and be merry!

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)

1. Nearer future people are closer relatives of ours, so we have stronger obligations to them.

2. Future people will be richer than us; poor don’t have to help rich.

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)

3. We should save for future people not spend for them (they’ll be better off)

4. There are a zillion future people – we can’t have duties to them all.

Why discount future people?(some better reasons)

5. They will have knowledge and technology we can’t anticipate.

Manure Project*, London 1850Naïve and Gratuitous (NAG)

* Imaginary

Defenders vs. DiscountersWhich side is right?

Are any of these good reasons to discount the problems of future people?

1. Nearer future people are closer relatives of ours.

2. Future people will be richer than us; why should poor give to rich?

3. We should save for them, not spend on them now.

4. There are a zillion future people – we can’t have duties to them all.

5. They will have knowledge and technology we can’t predict.

The Mixed Truth

• Should overcome bias.• No fixed rate of discount.• Should not assume future people will be rich;

we may make them poor!• However, we should try to avoid wasting

money and effort on NAGs.

Definite NAGDon’t bother

• Sustainable song-writing (save some melodies for future generations).

• Sustainable mountain-climbing (save some first ascents for future generations).

• Can you think of a non-silly example of a definite NAG?

Definite NAG Might be NAG Might be NAG Definitely not NAGDon’t bother Not worth it Should do anyway

Must do

Definitely not NAGMust do

• Sustainable land use – future people will not be able to “invent” new land (e.g. city living, building “up”)

• Conservation – future people will not be able to recreate wilderness and biodiversity that we destroy

• Population control – future people will not be able to cope with huge populations

Might be NAG should do anyway

• Greenhouse gas reduction (future people may have geoengineering solution)

• Eat less meat because it wastes land (future people may be eating lab meat)

Might be NAGnot worth it

• Very high probability of helpful future knowledge

• Very high sacrifice and expense for us• Examples?

Summary

1. Sustainable X-ing means saving “enough and as good” for future people

2. Sustainable X-ing is only good if X is permissible to begin with

3. There’s a debate between discounters and defenders of future people

4. Wise planners will avoid NAG-ing.

Bibliography• John Broome, “The Ethics of Climate Change,” Scientific American

2008 • John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 1690• Derek Parfit, “Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Social

Discount Rate” (1983)• Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 1984• Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010)• FAO (United Nations), Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental

Issues and Options• Sahotra Sarkar, Environmental Philosophy: From Theory to Practice

(2012)• Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (2002)