|
    
|
|
Chapter 18 — The Imperative of Ecological Health Study Chapter Summary Ecological malaise, or environmental
illness, has emerged as a major concern in world politics. At its worst,
ecological ill health threatens humankind’s biological existence. It affects
both developed and developing nations. The depletion and waste of resources;
population growth wildly in excess of available food, land, water, and energy;
the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming; and air and water pollution--these are all real threats to hopes for a better
tomorrow. In particular, ecological dangers may prevent developing nations from
overcoming poverty and threaten the prosperity of developed nations. We are challenged by a wide array of
global environmental issues, and the response of the international community to
these growing concerns has been mixed at best. A number of global environmental
conferences have been held resulting in numerous declarations of intent for
better environmental management, but few effective mechanisms have emerged. One
area of some success: several agreements have been negotiated to limit and
ultimately ban the release into the atmosphere of the harmful gases that are a
major cause of ozone depletion and global warming. Chapter 18 presents a number of
alternative approaches for dealing with environmental problems. Proponents of
the liberal conservation approach maintain that modest reforms can do
the job. They emphasize the feasibility of conserving scarce resources,
limiting family size, and safeguarding the environment. Programs such as
conservation campaigns, family planning, and environmental protection have been
helpful. But are reforms that build on existing policies enough? Critics
maintain that these kinds of reforms do not come to grips with the radical
problems of scarcity, overpopulation, and pollution, and they argue that
current forms of conservation only postpone the day of reckoning. The guarded optimists believe that
many environmental problems have been grossly exaggerated and that problems of
population, hunger, energy, raw materials, and pollution are solvable with the
use of cutting-edge technology and through economic growth. Critics contend
that this kind of thinking is fanciful and point to the alarming costs of
technological solutions. Advocates of sustainable development, a concept widely accepted in the United Nations, calls for a two-pronged
management approach. First, there must be a high degree of responsible and
rational management of growth at the national level. Second, sustainable
development requires a high level of international cooperation and agreed-upon
norms of environmental protection. Rules for environmental management must be
enforceable. This approach is appealing because it does not reject the notion
of growth, but claims that growth must be combined with more international
programs of planet management. Critics claim that sustainable development
smacks of “having one’s cake and eating it too.” Moreover, the approach implies
some major adjustments in standard of living in the developed world, and such
adjustments may be difficult to implement. Advocates of a steady-state philosophy
are convinced that the present ecological crisis is a deep-seated, ongoing
reality and cannot be dealt with through superficial reform or technological
fixes. They argue that radical policies will be necessary to achieve a basic
long-term balance between the demands of a population and the environment that
supplies its wants. Steady-state thinking is closely akin to sustainable
development, but it is not as sympathetic to economic growth. Critics of steady
state assert that people are simply not willing to pay the costs of steady
state--reduced economic growth, more modest lifestyles, and the expenses of
pollution control. Finally, some critics are convinced that
the dangers of ecological ill health cannot be met in a democratic and
constitutional way. They maintain that only benevolent authoritarianism
can prevent disaster. A benevolent elite (which understands the ecological
dangers, has the common good and posterity in mind, and has the courage and
will to act) must use coercive, authoritarian means to rescue humankind.
Opponents of this approach quite naturally feel that the medicine is worse than
the disease and that ecological health can be regained in ways more compatible
with democratic and constitutional government. Our ecological problems require a
momentous political response that taxes the human capacity for wise judgment. Chapter Objectives After reading this chapter you should...
|