Ethics of resource consumption and ecological damage.

[In Dubio]

I'm wondering if it's possible to justify needless resource consumption and waste production; the consequences of which are extinction of other species, environmental pollution (ocean acidification, melting sea ice, etc.), exploitation of labour and all the rest. What would you consider a reasonable level of destruction per person, considering the needs of the individual, in regards to buying products that necessitate the extraction and consumption of minerals, the burning of fossil fuels, the clearing of rainforests? How can such a thing be understood or calculated? By intuition? Do humans have a deontological duty to future generations? Animals? How can this be decided?

p.s.
Please point out where I'm going wrong if such is the case.

 

[What 23]

I'm not sure if I would call it a duty to future generations, but perhaps to their own... integrity.

I'm not sure how it can be justified. I don't want to go off into left field, but I'm not sure how exactly to respond. Humans, as they are, as hands, might to "the universe" not be random, but might be fulfilling a niche in the system, that might serve some function. As things are created/as they grow, those things capable of manipulating, might not only manipulate for themselves, but we might be like cells, in a larger system. We might have a role in this universe, not yet revealed. One thing that sets us above other animals, is that we can conceivably resurrect other species that have long since passed, and as well, we might create entirely new species, from scratch. We might improve ourselves. That is if we don't destroy ourselves.

If we can get to that point, where we can fix things, and create new life, then yes, it's all justified. We had to break some eggs...

Then again, we might just be like fire, and we only want to slow down so there's still something left to burn. But still.

 

[Foreigner]

I think pragmatics will determine the outcome, and not ideology. We are only able to justify our current methods in so far as we are still able to carry them out. The ends justify the means until the means are no longer supportive. In other words, if you're winning, you can make up any story you want until you can no longer win, and then just defer the blame.

There is too much debate and intellectualization of "what is happening" on our planet. Eventually the planet will let us know with certainty what it is we have done and what the consequences may very well be. We don't even know if major human change can, at this point, undo what has been done. As most scientists currently say, we are past the cut-off point and are now entering unknown territory.

Yes, we do have a duty to use our intelligence to live in balance with this planet while we pursue understanding of our existence. In this case, the ethical and survival imperative both conjunct. We either harmonize and revel in it, or we die. That's pretty much it.

The major obstacle at this point is the number of humans on this planet who are totally reliant on human systems which are built upon the industrial consumption model, which in of itself stems from Judeochristian colonialism. The term "progress" was invented in the 19th century to define and extend a cultural value of dominion over earth and to justify material indulgence. What this planet needs is a return to natural law, which the current system does not reflect. What we need is the resurrection of very old pagan values about respect for the earth, the old germanic origin of "earth" meaning goddess/mother.

Natural law would dictate that any human who knowingly and irreparably harms their Mother in such a way that all other life is put in jeopardy, including that of future generations, should be punished. Our current system is psychopathic and illusory as we are trading real, viable, earthly capital which we all need to survive for the coming thousands of years, with something as useless and meaningless as currency.

 

[sekio]

What we really need is to find more planets to ruin. </half-sarcastic>

 

[In Dubio]

"In this case, the ethical and survival imperative both conjunct." This is what I'm struggling with, how to fulfil my survival instinct and other desires for an easy life full of weed and wine, while not contributing excessively to the damage. Because that would of course be hypocritical.

We'll be mining asteroids first, anything but reducing consumption, since that's not in our nature.