DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
welfare from the pollutants, or the changes to the climate that
will occur as a result of the use of fossil fuels and the loss of
forest. The greenhouse effect - to take just one danger to our
environment - threatens to bring about a rise in sea level that
will inundate low-lying coastal areas. This includes the fertile
and densely populated Nile delta in Egypt. and the Bengal delta
region, which covers 80 per cent of Bangladesh and is already
subject to violent seasonal storms that cause disastrous floods.
The homes and livelihood of 46 million people are at risk in
these two deltas alone. A rise in sea level could also wipe out
entire island nations such as the Maldives, none of which is
more than a metre or two above sea level. So it is obvious that
even within a human-centred moral framework, the preservation
of our environment is a value of the greatest possible
importance.
From the standpoint of a form of civilisation based on growing
crops and grazing animals, wilderness may seem to be a wasteland,
a useless area that needs clearing in order to render it
productive and valuable. There was a time when villages sur-
268
The Environment
rounded by farmland seemed like oases of cultivation amongst
the deserts of forest or rough mountain slopes. Now, however,
a different metaphor is more appropriate: the remnants of true
wilderness left to us are like islands amidst a sea of human
activity that threatens to engulf them. This gives wilderness a
scarcity value that provides the basis for a strong argument for
preservation, even within the terms of a human-centred ethic.
That argument becomes much stronger still when we take a
long-term view. To this immensely important aspect of environmental
values we shall now tum.
FUTURE GENERATIONS
A virgin forest is the product of all the millions of years that
have passed since the beginning of our planet. If it is cut down,
another forest may grow up, but the continuity has been broken.
The disruption in the natural life cycles of the plants and animals
means that the forest will never again be as it would have been,
had it not been cut. The gains made from cutting the forest -
employment. profits for business, export earnings, and cheaper
cardboard and paper for packaging - are short-term benefits.
Even if the forest is not cut. but drowned to build a dam to
create electricity, it is likely that the benefits will last for only a
generation or two: after that new technology will render such
methods of generating power obsolete. Once the forest is cut or
drowned, however, the link with the past has gone for ever.
That is a cost that will be borne by every generation that succeeds
us on this planet. It is for that reason that environmentalists are
right to speak of wilderness as a 'world heritage'. It is something
that we have inherited from our ancestors, and that we must
preserve for our descendants, if they are to have it at all.
In contrast to many more stable, tradition-oriented human
societies, our modem political and cultural ethos has great difficulty
in recognising long-term values. Politicians are notorious
for not looking beyond the next election; but even if they do,
269
Pradical Ethics
they will find their economic advisers telling them that anything
to be gained in the future should be discounted to such a degree
as to make it easy to disregard the long-term future altogether.
Economists have been taught to apply a discount rate to all
future goods. In other words, a million dollars in twenty years
is not worth a million dollars today, even when we allow for
inflation. Economists will discount the value of the million dollars
by a certain percentage, usually corresponding to the real
long-term interest rates. This makes economic sense, because if
I had a thousand dollars today I could invest it so that it would
be worth more, in real terms, in twenty years. But the use of a
discount rate means that values gained one hundred years hence
rank very low, in comparison with values gained today; and
values gained one thousand years in the future scarcely count
at all. This is not because of any uncertainty about whether
there will be human beings or other sentient creatures inhabiting
this planet at that time, but merely because of the cumulative
effect of the rate of return on money invested now. From the
standpoint of the priceless and timeless values of wilderness,
however, applying a discount rate gives us the wrong answer.
There are some things that, once lost, no amount of money can
regain. Thus to justify the destruction of an ancient forest on
the grounds that it will earn us substantial export income is
unsound, even if we could invest that income and increase its
value from year to year; for no matter how much we increased
its value, it could never buy back the link with the past represented
by the forest.
This argument does not show that there can be no justification
for cutting any virgin forests, but it does mean that any such
justification must take full account of the value of the forests to
the generations to come in the more remote future, as well as
in the more immediate future. This value will obviously be
related to the particular scenic or biological significance of the
forest; but as the proportion of true wilderness on the earth
dwindles, every part of it becomes significant) because the op-
270
The Environment
portunities for experiencing wilderness become scarce, and the
likelihood of a reasonable selection of the major forms of wilderness
being preserved is reduced.
Can we be sure that future generations will appreciate wilderness?
Perhaps they will be happier sitting in air-conditioned
shopping malls, playing computer games more sophisticated
than any we can imagine? That is possible. But there are

welfare from the pollutants, or the changes to the climate that

will occur as a result of the use of fossil fuels and the loss of

forest. The greenhouse effect - to take just one danger to our

environment - threatens to bring about a rise in sea level that

will inundate low-lying coastal areas. This includes the fertile

and densely populated Nile delta in Egypt. and the Bengal delta

region, which covers 80 per cent of Bangladesh and is already

subject to violent seasonal storms that cause disastrous floods.

The homes and livelihood of 46 million people are at risk in

these two deltas alone. A rise in sea level could also wipe out

entire island nations such as the Maldives, none of which is

more than a metre or two above sea level. So it is obvious that

even within a human-centred moral framework, the preservation

of our environment is a value of the greatest possible

importance.

From the standpoint of a form of civilisation based on growing

crops and grazing animals, wilderness may seem to be a wasteland,

a useless area that needs clearing in order to render it

productive and valuable. There was a time when villages sur-

268

The Environment

rounded by farmland seemed like oases of cultivation amongst

the deserts of forest or rough mountain slopes. Now, however,

a different metaphor is more appropriate: the remnants of true

wilderness left to us are like islands amidst a sea of human

activity that threatens to engulf them. This gives wilderness a

scarcity value that provides the basis for a strong argument for

preservation, even within the terms of a human-centred ethic.

That argument becomes much stronger still when we take a

long-term view. To this immensely important aspect of environmental

values we shall now tum.

FUTURE GENERATIONS

A virgin forest is the product of all the millions of years that

have passed since the beginning of our planet. If it is cut down,

another forest may grow up, but the continuity has been broken.

The disruption in the natural life cycles of the plants and animals

means that the forest will never again be as it would have been,

had it not been cut. The gains made from cutting the forest -

employment. profits for business, export earnings, and cheaper

cardboard and paper for packaging - are short-term benefits.

Even if the forest is not cut. but drowned to build a dam to

create electricity, it is likely that the benefits will last for only a

generation or two: after that new technology will render such

methods of generating power obsolete. Once the forest is cut or

drowned, however, the link with the past has gone for ever.

That is a cost that will be borne by every generation that succeeds

us on this planet. It is for that reason that environmentalists are

right to speak of wilderness as a 'world heritage'. It is something

that we have inherited from our ancestors, and that we must

preserve for our descendants, if they are to have it at all.

In contrast to many more stable, tradition-oriented human

societies, our modem political and cultural ethos has great difficulty

in recognising long-term values. Politicians are notorious

for not looking beyond the next election; but even if they do,

269

Pradical Ethics

they will find their economic advisers telling them that anything

to be gained in the future should be discounted to such a degree

as to make it easy to disregard the long-term future altogether.

Economists have been taught to apply a discount rate to all

future goods. In other words, a million dollars in twenty years

is not worth a million dollars today, even when we allow for

inflation. Economists will discount the value of the million dollars

by a certain percentage, usually corresponding to the real

long-term interest rates. This makes economic sense, because if

I had a thousand dollars today I could invest it so that it would

be worth more, in real terms, in twenty years. But the use of a

discount rate means that values gained one hundred years hence

rank very low, in comparison with values gained today; and

values gained one thousand years in the future scarcely count

at all. This is not because of any uncertainty about whether

there will be human beings or other sentient creatures inhabiting

this planet at that time, but merely because of the cumulative

effect of the rate of return on money invested now. From the

standpoint of the priceless and timeless values of wilderness,

however, applying a discount rate gives us the wrong answer.

There are some things that, once lost, no amount of money can

regain. Thus to justify the destruction of an ancient forest on

the grounds that it will earn us substantial export income is

unsound, even if we could invest that income and increase its

value from year to year; for no matter how much we increased

its value, it could never buy back the link with the past represented

by the forest.

This argument does not show that there can be no justification

for cutting any virgin forests, but it does mean that any such

justification must take full account of the value of the forests to

the generations to come in the more remote future, as well as

in the more immediate future. This value will obviously be

related to the particular scenic or biological significance of the

forest; but as the proportion of true wilderness on the earth

dwindles, every part of it becomes significant) because the op-

270

The Environment

portunities for experiencing wilderness become scarce, and the

likelihood of a reasonable selection of the major forms of wilderness

being preserved is reduced.

Can we be sure that future generations will appreciate wilderness?

Perhaps they will be happier sitting in air-conditioned

shopping malls, playing computer games more sophisticated

than any we can imagine? That is possible. But there are