Earth Summit Ethics:
Toward a Reconstructive Postmodern Philosophy of Environmental
Education.
Callicott, B. and da Rocha. F.J. (eds)
Albany: SUNY Press, 1996
ISBN 0-7914-3054-5 (PR) $19.95. xii + 247pp.
Earth Summit Ethics:
Toward a Reconstructive Postmodern Philosophy of Environmental
Education.
Callicott, B. and da Rocha. F.J. (eds)
Albany: SUNY Press, 1996
ISBN 0-7914-3054-5 (PR) $19.95. xii + 247pp.
Earth Summit Ethics is a book for those who believe in
the greening of the curriculum tertiary education. However it is not a manual
of practical suggestions. Rather it is contribution from environmental
philosophers towards educational theory, particularly useful for those who
believe that all education must comprise an environmental element. In this book
Callicott and da Rocha bring together a series of lectures delivered in Brazil
as a prelude to the Earth Summit 92, in Rio de Janeiro.
Jose Lutzenberger opens the discussion. The text of
Brazil's leading environmentalist allows us into the mind of someone with vast
experience in the area of environmental studies, both as a scientist and a
theoretician, and as the Brazilian Minister for the Environment at the time the
summit took place. Lutzenberger argues that what is to be found in today's
universities is not science, for true science would always take into account
the environment. And here I believe he is right. Lutzenberger applies his
critique to almost all academic disciplines in his opinion most of these areas
of study, including biology, are far from reflecting a genuine preoccupation
with environmental issues. What understanding of the world, the natural world,
can science have, with such a limited and specialized education?
So quite predictably, modern economic is almost always abstract and has very little to do
with reality (p. 36) He stresses that currently universities are not providing
young people with the look they need to I at kit the monumental task that Iies
before them (p. 42). Lutzenberger notes too that mans technocrats are now
beginning to accept that the destruction of the Amazon is the result of a technical
failure. Given their intellectual training, however, they will never admit that
it is also a moral failure. And this constitutes the fulcrum of his reflection. More importantly, it is also the central
tenet of environmental philosophy.
In “Benevolent Symbiosis”, J. Baird Callicott offers a
summary of the most important North American, schools of environmental thought.
On the one side we have a tradition born primarily as a reaction to European
romanticism. There one encounters Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.
In their footsteps Callicott places John Muir. According to Callicott “Muir
reversed the moral poles of the historic puritan valuation of
"wilderness", from negative to positive, and understood conservation
to be equivalent to "wilderness" preservation” (p. 141). In the
opposite camp Callicott places Gifford Pinchot, whose work articulates a
utilitarian philosophy of conservation. His is a philosophy that “stands for
development” and which maybe condensed into the following maxim: “the greatest
good, of the greatest number, for the longest time”. After discussing these two
philosophies - wilderness philosophy and utilitarian - Callicott proceeds to
offer a third alternative which he posits as the result of a dialectical
synthesis between the two former ones: Akio Leopold's philosophy of
conservation.
For Callicott Leopold's harmony-of-people-with-nature
philosophy of conservation transcends both Pinchot's and Muir's philosophies to
the extent that it goes beyond the conceptual distinction between people and
nature that both Pinchot and Muir uncritically perpetuate' (p 152). He
concludes by suggesting that Leopold's philosophy of conservation offers a
positive ideal of conservation practices.
In 'Earth Ethics: A Challenge to Liberal Educations,
Holmes Rolston offers us a general view of his theory of value in the
educational context. Commenting on how the notion of 'Rights' has served us so
well in the exploration of issues relating to human dignity, he goes do to
argue that it has failed totally in the analysis of issues dealing with the
environment. Subsequently Rolston proposes that an environmental education be
based on a theory of values. According to Rolston all our education systems -
moral, philosophical and scientific-are rooted in a humanist school of thought
he considers inadequate. Finally he argues that 'the challenge facing the
world' s universities thus is to criticize those dimensions of culture that
fragmented our harmony with nature, to envision alternative forms of culture that
make possible the conservation of nature and the diverse social values that
result froth such conservation' (p. 182).
In his essay Andrew Brennan asks why people, companies
and governments, even when well intentioned have failed to offer any serious
answers to the ecological problems faced by humanity. 'If I am right in my
diagnosis, then universities and other educational institutions will have to
look deep to find an adequate way forward for human society. For our problems
are-to some extent - ones associated with puzzling features of human nature'
(p. 95). Brennan describes an interesting aspect of these features. He cites
the example of when one knows what’s good, when one wishes to be good or ensure
that good is done, and yet one acts against what one knows and wishes to be
good. Aristotle designated such behaviour 'incontinence'. For Brennan this
constitutes a crucial aspect of any attempt at understanding why individuals,
universities and corporations find it so difficult to act correctly when dealing
with the environment.
He highlights 'self-deception' as an important feature
found in the behaviour of individuals, universities and corporations and
superficial analysis as central characteristic of much environmental literature,
Especially Brennan shows “how
our rationality is liable to be clouded by other factors and to enlisted in the
service of our attempts to hide unpleasant “aspects of our situation from ourselves”
(p. 106)
In “Ethics, Politics, Science and the Environment”
Catherine Larrere does little more than corroborate Michel Serres' arguments in
his own tract, 'Natural Contract'. She is right to highlight certain
Rousseauesque characteristics present in Environmental Philosophy: there is no
transcendent nature that we can recover' (p. 117). But like Serres she too
makes the misguided claim that nature is simply “a certain contemporary state
of science” (p. 121).
Nicholas Sosa's “The Ethics of Dialogue and the
Environment” begins with the recognition that we need `to revise and
reinterpret the scope of traditional moral theories'. He endorses the adoption
of an eclectic model. “Practical reasoning, after all, could be reconstructed
incorporating both teloi (ends) and deonta (duties) within it' (p. 53). He believes that an ethic of a dialogue with
Nature would provide the conditions necessary for such a process. In this
search for a solution Sosa engages the help of two philosophers, J. Rawls and
J. Habermas, offering of the latter' s work especially a rather dubious interpretation.
Lemons's article deals with the practical questions
involved in the adoption of programmes of environmental education. He speaks of
the need to disseminate environmental education throughout the whole academic
curriculum. Suggesting as a starting point the development and implementation
of a mandatory standardised national certification given by the National
Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). A note of caution is needed
here. As Lemons himself emphasises, a number of crucial questions will need to
be addressed before any such implementation is made desirable.
Questions such as:
a) Who decides what is and who is an environmental professional?
b) How can the recognition of such education qualifications be negotiated
by various interest groups?
c) To what extent will mandatory certification and accreditation require
a shift in emphasis of subjectmatter? (p. 213).
I am doubtful about the implications of his proposal it’s
a reductionistic one and would need to be carefully examined. I think Lemons
ignores some of the political and epistemological problems involved in his
proposal.
In 'What Can Universities and Professional Schools Do
to Save the Environment'. Peter Madsen poses the following question: Are
universities and professional schools - Business, law, engineering. etc. -
obliged, morally, to promote an awareness of environmental issues,' His reply,
in the affirmative, is then developed in two stages. Firstly he argues that
'Such in obligation devolves from the very nature of institutions of higher education
noting that the raison d'être, that
is, of the university, is to educate people and to conduct research always that
are useful in realizing societal values' (P 76) Secondly, he argues I hat,
given their privileged position, these institutions are under the obligation to
create and foster a climate of environmental awareness. He concludes by arguing
the very nature of the university and the principle of beneficence form the ethical
basis of this obligation' (p. 90)
In conclusion, I would argue that Callicott's and da Rocha's Earth Summit Ethics is a weightly
research tool for all those who concur with Madsen. Earth Summit Ethics adds its voice to that of C. H. Bowers and all
others who have struggled to build a bridgebetween environment of philosophy and
education: unfortunately two areas that remain apart.
Mauro Grün
The University of Western Australia
PORTO ALEGRE DECLARATION ON UNIVERSITY, ETHICS
AND ENVIRONMENT
The Universities of the
World have produced and are guardians of the knowledge by which human beings
have gained their startling powers both for the development and for the
degrading of the earth. Their mission is to transmit and develop this knowledge from generation to
generation for the benefit of all. The universities are now encouraged to
re-examine this role to ensure an education that fosters a sustainable
community of life on earth, with appropriate respect for human rights and for the
non-human communities of life. The 21st century university ought both to bridge and
to blend the sciences and humanities to an integrated whole.
To speak effectively
on environmental issues, the university should abandon the dogma that science deals
with a domain of objective facts and the humanities with a domain of subjective values.
Scientific inquiry is directed by our values and the revelations of science often inform, expand,
and transform our values in unexpected ways.
The
universities of the world have a particular opportunity to be transnational and
international. Ideas flow easily across national boundaries even when the
exchange of resources or the movement of people is limited or difficult. The
universities ought to take full advantage of their opportunities for the global dissemination of knowledge
relevant to the solution of environmental problems.
The
environmental crisis can only be solved at a global level, by making appeal to the
many disciplines which contribute to our knowledge of the problem: biology
as well as economics, philosophy as well as geography, law as well as agronomy.
Solutions are obstructed by the separation of disciplines characteristic of our universities. The
separation is twofold: first, each discipline is focused on its own special
subject matter; and, second, this is reinforced by the institutional division of
disciplines into separate departments. The universities must overcome this
fragmentation in order to be effective in their environmental mission.
An
important task of universities is to promote the value of solidarity. This includes
solidarity between developed and developing nations, present and future
generations and also between humans and other forms of life with which we share
earth's bounty of
genetic biodiversity. Such solidarity should encompass the vital processes of the
earth's ecosystems, along with its geophysical support systems.
Universities, in
recognition of their accumulated power, wealth, and influence should be
aware of the consequences of their financial and institutional operations on the
environment and become positive role models. They should carefully monitor their use of resources
and recycle and renew them. In their business practices they should only
make investments in environmentally responsible companies, transferring current
holdings from any that are not.
Divisive
national policies are impotent in the face of multiple global environmental threats and
are presently incapable of providing effective solutions at an integrated global
level. The earth's ecological integrity transcends national boundaries and is already
recognized as a basic goal of environmental policy. Environmental policy makers will
best achieve their integrated goals by making full use of the diverse multi-disciplinary
resources available within the universities.
The
formulation of appropriate treaties and conventions to maintain global ecological
integrity is a primary aim of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro. We encourage universities to make their
resources available for implementing this aim.
Porto Alegre, May 29, 1992
Declaração de Porto Alegre sobre Universidade,
Ética e Meio Ambiente
As
universidades de todo mundo produziram e são guardiãs do conhecimento pelo qual
os seres humanos atingiram seu surpreendente poder para o desenvolvimento e
para a degradação da terra. Sua missão é transmitir e desenvolver este
conhecimento de geração a geração para o benefício de todos. As universidades são
hoje encorajadas a re-examinar este papel para assegurar uma educação que
alicerce uma comunidade de vida sustentável sobre a terra, com o respeito
apropriado pelos direitos humanos e pelas comunidades de vida não humanas.
A
universidade do século XXI deve estabelecer uma ponte entre as ciências e as
humanidades e, ao mesmo tempo, unifica-las em um todo integrado. Para falar de
forma eficiente sobre questões ambientais, a universidade era abandonar o dogma
de que a ciência trata de um domínio de fatos objetivos e as humanidades de um domínio
de valores subjetivos. O questionamento cientifico e direcionado por nossos
valores e as revelações da ciência muitas vezes informam, expandem e transformam
nossos valores de forma inesperada.
As
universidades de todo o mundo tem hoje uma oportunidade particular de ser
transnacionais e internacionais. As ideias transitam facilmente por entre as
fronteiras nacionais mesmo quando a troca de recursos ou o movimento das
pessoas é limitado ou difícil. As universidades devem tirar pleno proveito de
sues oportunidades para a difusão global do conhecimento relevante à solução
dos problemas ambientais.
A crise
ambiental pode ser resolvida somente à nível global, recorrendo às muitas disciplinas que contribuem para o nosso
conhecimento do problema: tanto a biologia quanto a
economia, tanto a filosofia quanto a geografia, tanto o direito quanto a agronomia. A separação das disciplinas
que caracterizam nossas universidades prejudica as soluções. A
separação é dupla: primeiro, cada disciplina concentra-se exclusivamente na
sua própria temática; e isto, por sua vez, é reforçado pela divisão institucional das disciplinas em departamentos separados.
As universidades devem superar esta fragmentação a fim de serem eficientes na
sua missão ambiental.
É tarefa importante das universidades promover o valor
da solidariedade. Isto inclui
solidariedade entre nações desenvolvidas e nações em desenvolvimento, gerações
presentes e futuras e também entre seres humanos e outras formas de vida com as quais nós compartilhamos da abundância
terrestre de biodiversidade genética. Tal solidariedade deve abranger
os processos vitais dos ecossistemas terrestres, juntamente com seus sistemas
de apoio geofísicos.
As universidades, em reconhecimento ao seu poder, riqueza
e influência acumulados devem estar conscientes das consequências das
suas operações financeiras e institucionais
sobre o meio ambiente e tomarem-se modelos de atuação positivos. Elas devem monitorar cuidadosamente seu uso de
recursos, reciclando-os e renovando-os. Nas suas práticas empresariais
elas devem fazer investimentos somente em
companhias ambientalmente responsáveis, retirando suas atuais participações daquelas
que não o sejam.
Políticas
nacionais divisionistas são impotentes face às múltiplas e globais ameaças ambientais e são presentemente incapazes
de fornecer soluções efetivas à um nível
global integrado. A integridade ecológica da terra transcende as fronteiras nacionais
sendo já reconhecida como um objetivo básico da política ambiental. Aqueles que planejam tal política obterão de forma
mais fácil seus objetivos integrados
fazendo pleno uso dos diversos recursos multidisciplinares disponíveis dentro
das universidades.
A formulação de tratados e convenções apropriados para a
manutenção da integridade ecológica global é o
objetivo principal da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Ambiente e Desenvolvimento no Rio de Janeiro. Nós
encorajamos as universidades a colocar seus
recursos à disposição para implementação desse objetivo.
Porto
Alegre, 29 de Maio de 1992.
Esta declaração foi elaborada ao final do Seminário Internacional sobre Universidade,
Ética e Meio Ambiente, realizado na
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, em maio
de 1992.
Dr. Holmes Rolston III
(Coordenador da Declaração) University of Cobrado - E.U.A.
(Coordenador da Declaração) University of Cobrado - E.U.A.
Dr. Fernando J. da
Rocha (Coordenador do Seminário)
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - RS - Brasil
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - RS - Brasil
Dr. Tüiskon Dick
Reitor da Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - Brasil
Dr. Andrew Brennan
University of Western Australia - Austrália
Dr. Catherine Larrére
Université de Paris
- França
Dr. J. Baird
Callicott
University of
Wisconsin - E.U.A.
Dr. Laura Westra
University
of Windsor - Canadá
Dr. Nicolás M. Sosa
Universidad de Salamanca
- Espanha
Dr. Peter Madsen
University Carnegie Mellon - E.U.A
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário