Bacteriologist

Rockefeller University

Part I -- Ethics

Part II -- Ecology

Part III -- EnvironEthics

When Thomas Jefferson penned The Declaration of Independence in 1776, he mirrored the American Founders’ belief that some human rights are "inalienable." Among these rights are those to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No one—either person or government—has the authority to take away certain rights. More than 150 years later, the United Nations promulgated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, echoing their understanding that, independent of time and place, people retain value and dignity, and thus should be treated in a humane manner. Both Declarations are built on an ethical foundation that recognizes moral absolutes. Because all humans are equals as members of the same species, they have, irrespective of culture, unalienable and individual rights. These rights are also known as natural or human rights. Recognizing that people need the physical environment for oxygen, water, soil, sunshine and other resources, EnvironEthics expands the ethical structure of human rights by incorporating an ecological dimension.

While EnvironEthics demonstrates that people have a human right to a livable planet, this book discovers that right only after probing its main topic—the individual’s moral relationship with Nature. Alternatively stated, people have a natural right to a habitable Earth because they physically depend on it, and are thus, morally obligated to it. However, a right only has meaning when paired with its twin, responsibility. So rather than concentrating on rights, EnvironEthics centers on responsibility; and the science of responsibility is ethics.

We must resolve this conflict. To gain insight into our current predicament, let us search the past looking at how the relationship of humans-within-the-environment has changed.

In previous centuries, humans had little control over Nature. Certainly, people had some influence as to how much subsistence and comfort a particular environment could yield. When pitted against natural world, however, they were powerless. If a region sustained inhabitants and permitted an increased standard of living, that condition (though not random) had less to do with human effort than with chance events.

Aside from romantic yearnings for a bygone era when people lived in simple harmony with Nature, many civilizations abused the environment. They leveled forests, burned landscapes, eroded soils and exhausted natural resources. Yet, their destructive impact remained local. That is, whatever habitats that previous societies impaired or erased, the detrimental effects to the bioregion tended to be minimal, sometimes insignificant. On a global level, those inhabitants left Earth unharmed, if for no other reason that they lacked the population and the technology. In short, other than their immediate surroundings, pre-industrialized societies could not control Nature. Thus, if past generations dwelled in an environment conducive to life, health and happiness, that condition depended less on personal choice than on uncontrollable chance.

Times have changed.

Since the Industrial Revolution, environmental conflicts have escalated from local squabbles to global assaults. Indeed, society has secured unprecedented gains in a battle determining environmental power and control. And such incredible power has allowed people not only to create but also to destroy. More specifically, against the economic advantages of manipulating an environment, people must weigh the simultaneous annihilation of ecosystems and possible destruction of the biosphere. In fact, civilization can so impact the planet that humankind has catapulted itself into a period wherein naiveté is perilous and arrogance potentially catastrophic. According to The National Geographic Society’s President, Gilbert M. Grosvenor, "During one brief century mankind has passed the point of global opportunism and entered an era of global protection."2 More so than ever before, the ability to sustain life, to maintain health and to pursue happiness depends not on chance events, but on human choices.

To be sure, natural disasters will remain, i.e., volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. However, environmental tragedies like ozone depletion, rainforest destruction, acid rain and global warming testify that humans influence ecological systems in a qualitatively different manner. In other words, chance has met choice.

Further, once we admit human choice has a role in environmental destruction, we must accept the notion of responsibility. Not that people seek to destroy the environment (though some do it with pride), yet the tragedies result from human activities. At this point, moral responsibility forces us to turn to environmental ethics. Since we seek an ecological ethic, we need a moral theory that encompasses all of humanity. We travel to the ancient Greece of Aristotle. Why Aristotle? How can a 2,400-year-old theory address complex, contemporary issues? Aristotle drafted a moral blueprint which, after an essential alteration, supports the weighty claim that all people have universal rights and responsibilities. At the minimum, this modified version of Aristotle's ethical philosophy is compatible with the rights recognized in the United States Declaration of Independence and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because EnvironEthics seeks to establish moral imperatives which assign ecological rights and responsibilities, it extends the human rights tradition known as democratic liberalism into the ecological sphere.

To build our ethical structure, we incorporate large sections of Aristotle's Ethics and its commentaries, most notably Mortimer J. Adler’s Aristotle for Everybody. While Aristotle never addressed the human duty to Nature, such an omission is not surprising. Because people possessed such little power compared to the forces of Nature in past centuries, the environment was considered uncontrollable. In turn, since humans could not destroy their bioregion, they could not harm themselves and thereby impede their own happiness. Although Aristotle never forgot the human organism’s dependence upon Nature, he was ignorant of homo sapiens interdependence with Earth. After 2400 years, an expanding human population and consuming resources with increasing abandon, the belief in an "uncontrollable-environment" has become antiquated.

This essay’s ultimate goal is to demonstrate that humans have a moral duty to Nature. My purpose is straightforward: an environmental ethic helps us enlighten ourselves. As Aristotle understood, ethics is a practical endeavor. Because ethics addresses values, it assists people in distinguishing between actions that are good and bad, between things that people should and should not do. Therefore, if we discover the environmental value of stewardship, the resulting moral knowledge will assist us in making practical judgments about how humans should behave in the ecosphere. That is, environmental enlightenment!

While environmental degradation has diverse forms, ecological impact emanates from three principle dynamics — population, affluence, and technology. These three factors—more technically referred to as 1) the human population, 2) the per capita rate of resource consumption (and pollution) and 3) the technology impact to produce each unit of consumption — are all vital to keeping Earth habitable and people healthy. So when isolated, no single dynamic gives the entire picture. But because we attempt to discover a moral principle between humans and our life-giving planet, we focus not on population (which we examine in Chapter 12) but on resource consumption, pollution and technology — on individuals and their activities.

On the road to discover an environmental ethic, we must amend a universal ethical theory of human rights by adding a dimension which recognizes ecologic interdependence. To reach this destination, our itinerary consisting of three parts follows. Part I introduces us to ethics. Chapter 1 provides an overview which places EvironEthics on a firm moral foundation -- the natural-rights philosophy of democratic liberalism. Then it discusses why we embark on our journey to an ecologic ethic, what we risk losing if we fail to reach our goal, and lastly, how a shift to environmental values not only removes many obstacles in our path but also enriches the human spirit. Chapter 2 reviews Aristotle’s moral philosophy, emphasizing that happiness includes complete virtue and good fortune.

Chapter 5 notes that humans are destabilizing the biosphere’s life-supporting equilibrium by overwhelming its self-correcting processes. Further, these artificial shocks or environmental conflicts not only impair human health but also threaten irrevocable planetary change. Chapter 6 asserts that environmental tragedies from human origins are controllable, or more precisely, semi-controllable impediments to health and happiness. Therefore, under certain circumstances the belief in an "uncontrollable-environment" is invalid.

In Part III, we return to ethics. Chapter 7 amends Aristotle’s moral philosophy by showing that an ethical principle exists regulating how people should treat Nature — the environmental virtue of stewardship. Chapter 8 demonstrates stewardship as a universal truth. This moral proof is achieved by combining a self-evident premise of ethical value with a descriptive statement of ecological fact. Briefly, this environmental truth holds that humans should perpetuate a hospitable biosphere by not destabilizing it — by maintaining and by restoring the ecosphere’s life-giving, but no longer purely natural balance. Chapter 9 looks at the other side of ethical responsibilities —human rights. Stewardship reflects the moral duty to keep Earth healthy because a livable habitat is a human need; and individuals have rights to their natural needs. As all people have rights to life and liberty, they also have the co-existing human right to a healthy Earth.

Chapter 10 expands the concept of wealth from economic possessions to include biological diversity in the form of genes, species, and ecosystems. This bio-wealth not only serves as a basis for economic prosperity but also provides Earth's life-support services. Chapter 11 argues that in order to treat Nature properly, people must view Earth with a different mind-set or worldview. Because worldviews influence attitudes which then affect actions, we develop a conceptual model which more closely corresponds to ecologic reality. Synthesizing economic development, cultural diversity and ecologic values, this paradigm is conservation. The conservation worldview changes attitudes, and ecologically principled attitudes (coupled with stewardship) lead to environmentally beneficial actions. When the individual becomes a positive force for Nature, economic, political and cultural institutions will adapt to reinforce ecologic values.

Exploring the rights and responsibilities among the world's peoples and nations, Chapter 12 demonstrates how environmental justice bridges the chasm that divides the industrialized North from the developing South in three ways. First, the resources of the global commons, especially fisheries, minerals and energy, must be distributed more equitably; and those components that cannot become private property must be perpetuated for the benefit of all. Second, through its negative mandate, justice sets the moral imperative to not damage others' environment. Third, drawn from justice's positive aspect, the ecological dimension of a community's common good -- whether at the local, national or the biospheric level -- is enhanced when people take positive steps to protect and to enrich the natural world.

Finally, as the Conclusion asserts, since humans participate in ecological as well as political collectives, people have a dual citizenship which carries concomitant duties -- to country and to Mother Earth. When humanity-within-the-biosphere is intimate, people become global citizens. Further, as patriotism is manifest in nationalist allegiances and services, so too an environmental loyalty and service, termed matriotism, helps explain the intrinsic worth of conserving resources and perpetuating the biospheric community. When science meets art and when fact encounters intuition, the human spirit becomes integrated and enlightened.

Humanity is interconnected to a living Earth. By breathing, by cutting trees, and by driving cars, people participate in and influence the global cycles of oxygen, carbon dioxide and other components that keep Earth hospitable. To explore this human-biosphere link, we embark on a journey to discover an environmental ethic -- namely, virtues and vices along with rights and responsibilities. Our first stop imparts some background on how absolute standards of human conduct receive validity; on what events have precipitated our inquiry; and, lastly, what are the prospects of reaching our goal. In so doing, we lie the foundation for the environmental enlightenment. Further, we are part of the environment, and we have an important role to play in keeping the biosphere habitable. As a consequence to which our venture testifies, our physical dependence on and moral obligation to other animals, plants and life-support processes warrants a confession. Humbled yet confident, we must declare our interdependence with our home planet.

Are universal standards of human conduct an illusion? Many contemporary trends maintain that moral absolutes do not and cannot exist. The thought that a certain act is universally wrong for every person in every society smacks of elitism and absolutism. Who are we in the United States or in other democracies to criticize a different culture? The belief that moral absolutes cannot exist can be considered "cultural relativism." The opposing viewpoint asserts that universal standards of conduct do exist. To paraphrase John K. Galbraith, because cultural relativists deny the moral universals that EnvironEthics affirms, they may want to return this book to the shelf unread.

If the cultural relativists were correct, that is, if moral absolutes do not exist, then it is impossible for "foreigners" to criticize Nazi Germany’s Third Reich or South Africa’s apartheid. To say these societies violated the human rights of their inhabitants is to admit that these cultures transgressed universal standards of ethical conduct. Rightly, people throughout the world criticized these societies as moral abominations. Many governments, international tribunals such as the United Nations and the World Court, and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) such as Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch testify that moral absolutes apply to everyone, everywhere.

Having seen that universal ethical standards exist, we must recognize that all moral absolutes do not merit equal consideration and that many are dangerous. For instance, Soviet Communism had held the false premise that the means of production embodied in private property was the source of class conflict and human suffering. This tenet led to the utopian dream that people could peacefully coexist without government. In the transition to the classless society, the Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat had expropriated the country’s wealth. In any event, invalid premises enabled human rights to be sacrificed (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote) for the good of the cause. Importantly, the intentions of Communism’s intellectual architect Karl Marx and a significant political practitioner Vladimir Lenin were noble — how to alleviate human suffering and injustice caused by bourgeois capitalism. Nevertheless, the moral absolutes of Marxist-Leninism had horrific consequences. Understanding history, we avoid similar pitfalls by basing our moral absolutes on sound principles.

Whether beneficial or harmful universal ethical mandates are by no means restricted to economics and politics for the environmental movement encompasses many, diverse and often incompatible doctrines. For instance, under the vast tent of the animal rights camp, some tenets assert humans must not injure or kill animals for any reason. Thus, along with performing medical research that causes any animals pain, eating meat and fish is always immoral. As recent centuries have witnessed, the United States has widened its ethical vision to recognize the equal rights of African Americans, women, and Native Americans. The animal rights advocates insist that humanity must once again expand its moral horizon to liberate sentient animals.

As another example of the plurality of thought amidst the environmental movement, holistic rights argue that the greatest moral value is the integrity of the ecosystem, the perpetuation of its processes, and the survival of its biotic community. Accordingly, a single plant, animal, or microorganism of an endangered species may have more value than one or many organisms of more populated species including homo sapiens. To sacrifice a human life for the sake of a larger community, whether political or ecologic, is problematic to the natural-rights tradition, which is why philosopher Tom Regan calls it "environmental fascism".1 Though permissible, such harsh labels are too simplistic.

It is essential to mention that most people who believe in animal or holistic rights are loving, compassionate, and very moral. Still, their principles cannot be applied universally without denying human rights to life and health. Thus, even though proponents of animal and holistic rights often have noble intentions, the moral absolutes of both ideologies, for different reasons, are untenable. When we explore in Chapter 9 how EnvironEthics relates to human rights, we discuss these theories in greater detail. For now, we note that the environmental spectrum contains many differing and often contradictory ideologies about how people ought to treat Nature and the natural world; and EnvironEthics is just one body of thought. Yet, to see why EnvironEthics is superior to competing theories, we demonstrate that its moral absolutes are based on the firm foundation of universal human rights.

With respect to Nature, EnvironEthics seeks to obtain standards of human conduct which are objective and absolute, in short, universal. This goal—a sound moral philosophy — can be achieved by combining facts from ecology with values from ethics. With this moral knowledge, the individual (and humanity) can explore ethical life’s environmental dimension.

My thesis has three major components. First, through the interactions of species and ecosystems, Nature self-regulates Earth’s habitable conditions which are necessary for human life and health. Second, humans are destabilizing Nature’s self-regulating, life-support mechanisms by exceeding ecologic tolerance margins. Third, by impairing Earth’s life-support processes such as ozone depletion and global warming, people are harming themselves and future generations.

How does ecologic degradation relate to environmental ethics? A simple syllogism follows:

By stating the human-environment conflict and resolution in less formal terms, we discover a moral virtue for Nature. The biosphere has a tendency toward ecologic equilibrium or environmental balance which provides essential resources—the free goods and services like circulating carbon dioxide, oxygen and water, producing soil, and regulating the climate. These environmental resources are indispensable to human health and happiness. So global warming, ozone depletion and other instances of environmental degradation are extreme conditions when humans exceed ecologic limits and push ecosystems away from the intermediate, balanced state. Thus, with respect to how much humans should influence ecosystems, ecologic equilibrium corresponds to an ethical balance — the environmental virtue of stewardship.

As I hold, EnvironEthics contributes to the public debate about how people should affect Nature by developing a moral architecture to address human-environment issues. So then, like America’s Founders, a united people who understand the value of Earth and of all its constituents can author another invaluable manifesto—The Declaration of Interdependence.

In order to write such a document, a moral foundation must be laid; and EnvironEthics seeks to design such a structure. To help envision interdependence, let us imagine ourselves standing on the moon, gazing at planet Earth. We see not a map carved by national borders but rather a single planet of brownish rock, blue water and swirling clouds floating in the empty sea of outer-space. Our planetary oasis is powered by the sun’s radiation and kept comfortable by an imperfectly understood greenhouse mechanism. In the global thermostat and in the biosphere’s myriad other functions, what role does life play? From this lunar perch, life in the cosmos may seem improbable. But we know that Earth is the home of life! Millions of species are transforming their environment and are being shaped by their surroundings in complex, co-evolutionary relationships.

Although from the moon we cannot see life, one species—homo sapiens — comprised of more than five billion human organisms is impacting the land, the atmosphere and the oceans at unsustainable rates. Indeed, humankind is destabilizing the carbon dioxide and the water cycles, deforesting landscapes, creating deserts, and depleting the ozone layer. For better or worse, many of these changes are irrevocable.

Two points deserve comment. First, as a component of the biosphere, every human influences the environment at both the local and the global levels. Some environmental problems like hazardous waste or municipal garbage disposal are primarily regional and local in scope, while others like climate warming and ozone depletion have a global arena. Yet, every action—however insignificant—affects Earth’s ecosystem.

Second, a person is also a member of homo sapiens who, along with other organisms and species, share the planet forming a biospheric community. Further, as community members we have a moral relationship to our neighbors—other humans, birds, trees and wildlife.

In general, the environmental theorist extracts a universal characteristic embedded in particular phenomena. In specific, (s)he must isolate the common thread people have errantly woven through Earth’s intricate and invisible Tapestry of Life. With a conceptual understanding, the individual can discover and can extricate the renegade stitch which threatens the Tapestry’s beauty and fabric.

The complexity of ecologic relationships may numb people into silence. Although environmental problems are significant, the solutions rest with humankind—its cultures and the individual. According to Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway’s former Prime Minister, "The problems we face are planetary, but not insoluble. But the huge changes sweeping over us and our biosphere demand fundamental changes in our attitudes, our policies and the way we run our societies." Since we are focusing on individual attitudes and actions, EnvironEthics provides a solid foundation upon which private introspection and public debate can build. Within such a framework, people can address their environmental activities and understand these consequences to encourage beneficial action and to discourage detrimental conduct.

It has been said, "To originate is to combine." EnvironEthics: A Declaration of Interdependence contains nothing original; it combines principles of ecology and ethics, none of which are recent discoveries. While uncertainty surrounds many ecologic processes and problems, EnvironEthics incorporates fundamentals and insights verified by generations of ecologists. Also, even though this book’s ethical framework has undergone essential modifications throughout the centuries, it was designed by Aristotle some 2400 years ago.

Because the human species physically depends on Nature and is thus morally obligated to it, people have environmental rights and responsibilities; and many cultures and institutions are starting to acknowledge the ecologic dependence and duty. For example, the United Nations adopted a document entitled The World Charter for Nature. In the ecological sphere, this manifesto recognizes that "Mankind is part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted function of natural systems which insure the supply of energy and nutrients." In the moral realm, it proclaims that "Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired." Importantly, people are beginning to realize not only that humans rely on the environment, but more significantly, that they have a moral imperative to perpetuate its life-giving attributes.

As the sole moral actor in this environmental drama, the individual has the role as Nature’s steward. In private and in public, each person must accept his/her responsibility in reweaving this fragile, interdependent Tapestry. Thus, individuals and nations should recognize the finite limits of the biosphere; and unless poverty dictates otherwise, they should keep their demands within these ecologic boundaries.

Neither utopian nor dogmatic, the practical science of EnvironEthics assists informed decision-making and conflict resolution regarding environmental issues from the local to the global. Thus, EnvironEthics works to counteract artificial environmental degradation; it attempts to restore planetary health; and it aims to prevent future tragedies. EnvironEthics targets these goals for the benefit of people and of future generations.

We, homo sapiens, must demonstrate wisdom by assuming environmental responsibility, by choosing moral virtue and by serving as stewards to pilot Spaceship Earth. In so doing, we fulfill the vision of President John F. Kennedy:

If we abdicate our environmental duty, we fulfill the prophecy of President Theodore Roosevelt:

Also since the biosphere cannot distinguish national borders, the industrialized world can harm the more vulnerable people in developing nations. In turn, concentrated in impoverished countries, human population growth—an ethical dilemma, to be sure—is also becoming a global force. To protect ourselves, the impoverished, and all species in the biospheric community—as well as future generations— let us first look inward to an often neglected aspect of human nature, its environmental dimension.

With unprecedented population and technology, homo sapiens faces a momentous challenge: this intelligent species must learn to satisfy human needs and wants while keeping Earth livable and comfortable. Because humans, unlike all other organisms, possess moral rights and responsibilities, they are solely responsible for our living planet. Therefore, we must choose how we can provide for improved living standards while conserving and enriching the natural environment. Our decisions will affect more than the opportunities of future generations but also will touch our own lives—our health and happiness.

Though tempting, we must resist thinking that the individual cannot make a difference. Along with maintaining ethical integrity, we just cannot afford the luxury of the status quo. To be sure, the trends in human population growth, resource consumption and technology are foreboding. But environmental degradation stems from individuals and their decisions. By applying ecologically sound values, people will restore Earth's health. As anthropologist Margaret Mead understood, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Though long dormant in most cultures, humanity’s environmental facet is awakening to embark on a journey leading to an intimate moral relationship with Nature. On this travel, we find that the-virtue of stewardship, which constrains human activity within ecologic tolerance margins, is not only essential to human health but is also indispensable to a happy life.

The time has come for each human member of the biospheric community to develop an intimate relationship with Nature. Each of us must learn to appreciate the biosphere and all of its other constituents. By recognizing Nature's beauty and its benefits, we implement an ethic of environmental use, respect and care. Though Earth's visible destruction warrants action, our ecologic adventure begins with our values and attitudes. Because values influence actions, each of us must affirm a personal, environmental code—A Declaration of Interdependence.

Happiness is the goal of every human life.

While most people agree that everybody aims for happiness, endless conflicts arise over how to define it. Is happiness the same for each of the more than five billion humans on Earth? Consider all the differences. Every person has particular dispositions, tastes and preferences. Also individuals differ in that their cultures have disparate foods, languages, norms, and customs. However, amidst all individual and cultural differences, people have a single, common trait — human nature. If each human does not possess this common element, the notion of equality evaporates and the flame of human rights becomes extinguished. From a common human nature arises universal human needs — the things that everyone must have to develop their human potential. Even though people and cultures satisfy these needs in various ways, the needs are common because they emanate from the same human nature.

In general, a person develops a habit by acting in a certain way, over and over again. For example, whether a potter or a golfer, the skills necessary to be a crafter or an athlete are acquired by repeating those actions corresponding to their respective arts. Similarly, good habits, in the sense of moral virtue, are formed when a person habitually chooses the appropriate means in achieving their just ends. Because humans possess free will, each individual has to decide how (s)he will acquire real goods; and moral excellence occurs when a person makes the correct decisions in achieving these ends, not every time but often. As a consequence, moral virtue has a necessary component—choice. By definition this choice represents a controllable variable.

Since people cannot control good fortune, Aristotle understood that happiness is not guaranteed to anybody, not even the most virtuous person. Indeed, misfortunes such as crippling disease or natural disaster sometimes fall upon the virtuous. As Aristotle noted,

In short, regardless of personal conduct, uncontrollable misfortune often prevents happiness.

In summary, although a mere vignette of our modified theory derived from Aristotle's ethics, happiness consists in possessing real goods, some under human control, and others non controllable. Nevertheless, all these real goods satisfy natural needs and are indispensable in fulfilling the human purpose—to be happy.

Concomitant with a human organism’s life and health, we must discuss a habitat within which that organism can obtain the resources necessary to live and to live well. By utilizing the available resources, life can not only survive but also flourish.

In a civil society, people should best create an atmosphere where they can obtain those goods like food, clothing, shelter, knowledge and friendship which will assist them in their pursuit of happiness. With these resources, an individual can develop his/her skills to their highest potential; and one should try to create surroundings conducive to this totum bonum—happiness.

In an analogous but an ecological sense, humans should develop and maintain their planetary environment so as to perpetuate a habitable ecosystem, wherein people can be healthy and happy. Yet in this household, the human species represents just one thread in Earth’s intricately woven Tapestry of Life. More to the point, all species ultimately depend on other living and non-living threads to subsist, let alone thrive. Consequently, we must explore the energy flows, the material cycles and the interdependent relationships of Earth, the threads of our terrestrial Tapestry.

While humans require an organic habitat, people also function as parts of many cycles within a whole ecological unit. That is, the human organism is a biotic component in an ecosystem. In this essay, we will call the interplay between people and Nature—between a biotic part and its ecological whole—the intra-environmental relationship.

The intra-environmental relationship refers to how the human organism and its environment interact within the planetary ecosystem. To be sure, at the human level, each person remains a separate and distinct entity—an autonomous individual. From an ecological reference, however, the human organism is not independent from the environment, but rather is interconnected to a habitat and is interdependent with the ecosystem’s other biotic and abiotic components. Thus, through the intra-environmental relationship, we can analyze how humans affect planet Earth, our global home.

When we conceptualize the planet as a whole ecologic system, three items surface. First, because the biosphere supplies water, oxygen and other components that all ecosystems need, it can be considered as the parent ecosystem. Second, "biotic diversity" represents the variety and the totality of organisms which in myriad ways share a mutual dependence on each other. These interdependent relationships testify that no organism can exist in isolation. Third, from a planetary reference all the biosphere’s ecosystems and subsystems function together to form a balanced and self-regulated whole. That is, the interdependent relationships between organisms, coupled with biogeochemical cycles (which we discuss in the next chapter) and energy flows create a condition of ecological equilibrium or environmental balance. Furthermore, the biosphere maintains this balance through natural controls or self-guided mechanisms. Thus through automatic controls, the parent ecosystem self-regulates a dynamic balance.

Because the latter two concepts are so important to our concern, we devote the rest of this chapter to the topic of interdependence while the next chapter considers the process of self-regulation.

Though illustrative, this basic example masks ecologic complexity. Interdependence occurs not only among producers, consumers and decomposers but also between specific species like the symbiotic relations such as: 1) termites and the cellulose-digesting bacteria that live in the insects’ stomachs; 2) humans and certain intestinal bacteria; and 3) hummingbirds who are the sole pollinators of certain plants.

In addition, interdependence extends beyond the relationships among organisms and species. So we briefly broaden our field of vision to incorporate additional levels of organization. An organism is comprised of smaller units—genes, cells and organs. Yet at the same time, an organism helps define even larger "levels"—populations, communities and ecosystems. Further, from an integrated perspective, all these units—from genes through organisms to ecosystems—cannot be considered as isolated, independent entities; but rather, we must conceive them as parts of an inter-related whole, Earth’s life-system. Often it helps to consider these differing levels of organization as a spectrum or a line. As ecologist Eugene Odum explains,

We cannot understate the importance of the interdependencies within and among genes, species and ecosystems. These biological resources are essential to life and the biosphere’s life-supporting processes. In aggregate biological resources and their interactions are commonly known as biological diversity, or simply biodiversity. More formally, biodiversity

Researchers often study biological resources at three levels of diversity—the gene, the species and the ecosystem. Genetic diversity is

Thus, biodiversity helps perpetuate Earth’s habitable conditions. In tandem, species and ecosystems perform functions such as stabilizing climate, manufacturing and circulating oxygen, creating and protecting watersheds, and producing soil. Since these life processes are essential to human existence and prosperity, let us collectively refer to all these resources and functions as environmental goods and services.

Now we integrate this chapter’s two main topics—the intra-environmental relationship and ecologic interdependence. People are members of an ecosystem. That is, humans participate in the material cycles and the interdependent relations among organisms which produce, consume, and decompose organic material. More specifically, biodiversity—the totality of Earth’s genes, species, ecosystems and their interactions—provides life-giving environmental goods and services. As we pursue happiness, we must remember the intra-environmental relationship, that we are a biotic part in the planetary whole. Recognizing this fact, we understand that an organism’s life and health depends on an external environment comfortable to its existence.

So, we thus far conclude: Humans are far from independent beings. On the contrary, people coexist with other life and non-living resources in an interconnected, invisible pattern—The Tapestry of Life.

We have just seen that a functioning ecosystem has diverse organisms and species involved in a complex, interdependent network which, in aggregate, serves a mutually beneficial purpose. We now turn and examine the topic of self-regulation. More precisely, we scrutinize how these various organisms interact with abiotic resources like soil, water and solar energy to self-regulate the habitable equilibrium experienced on Earth.

Having learned that biogeochemical cycles help maintain Earth’s life-giving, natural balance, we next discover how the ecosphere maintains the proper conditions so the planet remains habitable to a variety of organisms. That is, we find out how homeostatic processes automatically control a system’s internal steady-state, and thereby perpetuate the life process. The shortest answer is feedback mechanisms. However, because feedback processes play such a prominent role in ecologic activity, an analysis of this topic is necessary.

In essence, feedback mechanisms control internal conditions when output feeds back as input; and this input triggers a counter active response, tending to stabilize the system. A few examples will illustrate this point.

In The Wisdom of the Body, Walter B. Cannon described how the human organism controls certain internal functions via homeostasis. For instance, homeostatic mechanisms enable the human body to self-maintain myriad conditions; an obvious one is body temperature. When body temperature rises above normal (98.6°F), the brain senses the increase and sends impulses so that the sweat glands produce more perspiration. As more sweat evaporates from the skin (and as blood vessels dilate to more efficiently transfer the heat), body temperature is lowered. In other words, the increased body temperature becomes positive feedback; and the brain triggers a counter-active response, automatically attempting to bring the system back into equilibrium. (If the temperature drops below its equilibrium, a negative feedback occurs and biological processes operate in reverse, thereby keeping heat within the organism until the temperature reaches normal.) Thus, through homeostasis, the human organism automatically controls its temperature by seeking its natural balance.

Likewise, the ecosphere self-regulates global temperature. However, unlike the human organism, the planet maintains a constant "climate" through the aide of biogeochemical cycles which maintain an oscillating steady-state of atmospheric gases. Because carbon and oxygen apparently influence climate, a closer look at their biogeochemical cycles will demonstrate how they may assist the planet in self-regulating global temperature.

In any event, the biosphere and large ecosystems have other auto-control devices like the rate to store and to release nutrients. (The next chapter discusses some of these mechanisms.) Important to our discussion, when an ecosystem has its homeostatic controls keeping an ecologic balance, it can be considered healthy.

To recapitulate, Earth’s material cycles, energy flows and biodiversity automatically control the hospitable conditions that we enjoy; and the ecosphere maintains such a preferred-state through myriad (and imperfectly understood) homeostatic mechanisms. In short, Earth perpetuates an hospitable world because the biosphere self-regulates a steady-state equilibrium. Therefore, with respect to human life, health and happiness, we need the biosphere to perpetuate habitats and to sustain life by maintaining its natural balance.

Global warming... Ozone depletion... Acid rain... Species extinction... Deforestation... Desertification... Water diversion... Fisheries depletion... Hazardous waste...

Through each of these environmental conflicts runs a common thread symbolizing the ultimate source which has so degraded the environment—PEOPLE. From two directions, humans have conflicted with the environment because first, the human population continues to expand, and second, many individuals consume resources with increasing abandon. Through these direct or indirect means, people have extinguished non-human species; they have also overwhelmed Nature’s ability to replenish matter and energy. Indeed, humans have placed stresses on ecosystems and the biosphere at a rate these systems can neither tolerate nor sustain. Briefly, these two human forces, population and consumption, are the fibers behind the universal thread which threatens Earth's Tapestry of Life. In fact, this human strand destabilizes the environment and in turn causes ecological tragedies. With these thoughts in mind, we must confront the intra-environmental conflict and propose its peaceful resolution.

In Chapter 3 we learned that humans function within an ecologic exchange system—the intra-environmental relationship. Also we found that homo sapiens participates with other species and non-living resources in a multi-dimensional, interdependent network. In Chapter 4 we discovered that the biosphere maintains an internal order equilibrium because homeostatic feedback mechanisms like biogeochemical cycles tend to automatically seek a preferred-state, the natural balance.

In this chapter we delve deeper into the intra-environmental relationship by exploring how dynamic systems function and how humans influence them. First, we observe that ecosystems operate within two boundaries or extremes. Then, we demonstrate how humans interact within and even surpass these limits. By distinguishing between human and non-human activities, we isolate artificial from natural phenomena. In so doing, we confront the intra-environmental conflict’s driving force—the artificial extremes.

Similar to an organism whose health depends on a balanced condition of nutrition, body temperature, exercise and the like, an ecosystem also needs certain materials in proper amounts. Like an organism, the ecosphere must keep internal conditions within limits. As self-balancing units, both humans and ecosystems must avoid their respective system-defined extremes. With respect to many traits, dynamic systems have two extremes: excess and deficiency. For example, the human body can be too hot (hyperthermia) or have too little nourishment (malnutrition); health corresponds to the balanced condition. Likewise, an ecosystem must keep certain conditions like temperature, acidity, salinity, humidity and others within certain boundaries.

The artificial-natural distinction does not manifest itself in a mutually exclusive fashion. Indeed, either source can cause the same effect. Let us illustrate this notion of different cause/same effect with the example of species extinction. Species continuously become extinct by an evolutionary process of gradual change or by infrequent but calamitous periods of mass extinction. Since human influence is absent, both types of extinction are natural. Yet, the contemporary concern about how many and at what rate humans are extinguishing species focuses on humankind’s ability to perform these acts. As a consequence these human-induced changes are termed artificial. Thus, artificial changes are not necessarily a new class of phenomena, but environmental effects which have a non-natural cause—people.

Some environmentalists argue that whenever humans alter ecosystems an evil or bad act has been committed. Au contraire! Because humans interact with the ecosystem, they must alter the environment. In fact, as participants in biogeochemical cycles, all organisms modify their surroundings. Modifications are a matter of degree. So environmental change, in itself, is good. More formally illustrating this point, the law distinguishes between two types of behavior—per se and per accidens. If an act is wrong per se, then it is improper in every instance. In contrast, if certain behavior is bad per accidens, then such activities can be appropriate in a different time or a different place. Thus, since people must alter the environment, human-caused environmental change is good, per se. However, specific ecologic modifications may or may not be good. From this latter level, we analyze human activity.

With the natural-artificial distinction in mind, let us now explore environmental extremes and the consequences of violating them. By doing so, we hope to discover a universal similarity manifest in each human-induced intra-environmental conflict.

In general, ecosystems need matter and energy within limits; and they have two boundary zones—excess and deficiency. In other words, ecological collectives can have too much of certain things or too little of essential resources; and the descriptive conditions of too much and too little, respectively, correspond to a dynamic system’s extremes of excess and deficiency.

In specific, the environmental extreme of excess occurs when an external or an internal force destabilizes an otherwise balanced system by putting in too much material or energy. Conversely, an ecological limit of deficiency happens when a force removes essential amounts of matter and energy so that too little remains for the ecosystem to function properly. In either case, when people press ecosystems beyond ecologic thresholds, they destabilize their habitat and maybe even their planetary life-support. For the rest of this chapter, we discuss how humans violate these tolerance margins by probing the intra-environmental conflict’s artificial extremes.

Thus, overwhelming Nature’s balance, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases retain heat, destabilize the biosphere’s equilibrium and thereby contribute to global warming.

We illustrate how artificial excess weakens at least some of an ecosystem’s capacity to control internal conditions by reintroducing feedback loops. In the case of acid rain and of global warming, human activity increases positive and unchecked feedback, which further acidifies or heats the ecosystem. Ozone depletion occurs through a different mechanism (a negative feedback); yet, I place it under Excess because it is a by-product of too many chlorinated molecules. Other imbalances resulting from positive feedback include various types of water pollution. One noteworthy example is the "lake-death" syndrome, wherein agricultural run-off fertilizes lakes, which results in algae blooms, depleting the lake’s oxygen supply and killing many of its inhabitants.

To summarize Excess, Paracelsus captured its essence: The poison is the dosage. Humans push ecosystems and the biosphere to this environmental extreme by putting in too much or too many compounds. As we saw, at an admittedly simplified level, too much sulphorous matter contributes to acid rain; too many chlorinated molecules causes ozone depletion; and too many carbon compounds intensifies global warming. In these intra-environmental conflicts, people pollute Nature to Excess; and in turn they poison Earth.

As Excess pushes an ecosystem from a healthy balance to an extreme of too much, Deficiency destabilizes Nature at the opposing limit of too little. Like Excess, Deficiency wreaks havoc in an otherwise healthy ecosystem. However, unlike Excess (which puts too many unnecessary and harmful materials into the environment), Deficiency occurs when people take away from the ecosystem too many necessary and beneficial components. For instance, as human Excess is manifest in obesity and in leukemia, the human organism experiences Deficiency in malnutrition and in anemia (i.e., ingesting too few nutrients or possessing too few red blood corpuscles, respectively). Similarly, an ecosystem experiences Deficiency in deforestation and in desertification (i.e., having too few trees or possessing too little soil and moisture, respectively). Put simply, Deficiency is a lack or a privation or an insufficiency of necessary materials. So, when people take away from an ecosystem too much matter or energy so it has too few resources to remain stable, we term the resulting condition artificial deficiency.

In The Green Hills of Africa, Ernest Hemingway touched upon water diversion, soil erosion and deforestation, and in so doing characterizes artificial deficiency. Hemingway laments:

To summarize, Deficiency is simply a resource insufficiency. As we saw, too little water upsets the hydrological cycle; too little soil damages agricultural productivity; and too few trees results in deforestation. Seen in this light, other instances of Deficiency appear including desertification, fisheries depletion and species extinction. In each case of artificial deficiency, people extract, damage or kill too many of the ecosystem’s vital resources, leaving too few components to maintain ecologic integrity.

Let us integrate our discussion of the artificial extremes. When humans destabilize ecosystems and the self-balancing biosphere, they degrade Earth. In many forms and in varying degrees, people press ecological systems to their limits and beyond.

To help us gain a clearer picture of ecosystemic conditions, we employ the following schematic, Table 5.1.

Too Few Too Much

Too Little Too Many

Water Diversion Acid Rain

Soil Erosion Ozone Depletion*

Deforestation Global Warming

Desertification Water Pollution

Fisheries Depletion Air Pollution

Species Extinction Radioactive Waste

So, when Excess overwhelms the planetary ecosystem with harmful quantities of materials and when Deficiency deprives Earth of essential resources, they impair the ecosphere’s capacity to perpetuate the preferred state. Yet, however different Excess and Deficiency may be, they do share at least one common trait, ecologic instability. From either direction, such environmental injuries obliterate small-scale ecosystems, damage bio-regions, debilitate the ecosphere. In turn, they threaten biospheric homeostasis and human health. So, with respect to human-induced ecologic degradation, we have discovered a universal similarity—the artificial extremes.

As planetary "weavers," people are sewing many stitches whose common pattern endangers the Tapestry’s beauty and integrity—its essence and existence. Ecologist Odum articulates the intra-environmental conflict:

Now, we must cure our schizophrenia!

Of course, "curing our schizophrenia" between environmental manipulator and ecological inhabitant is hyperbole. Regarding the intra-environmental relationship, people do not have a mental defect. On the contrary, we can resolve the intra-environmental conflict by combining intellectual and moral endeavors.

Intellectually we need ecological knowledge describing how Nature works and how homo sapiens interacts with Earth’s other living beings and its non-living components. To this end, Chapter 3 portrayed humans as just one biotic component of the planetary whole. Then Chapter 4 described the ecosphere as a self-regulating collective which perpetuates a habitable environment because homeostatic controls help maintain a preferred state—the natural balance. Chapter 5 noted that humans are destabilizing these dynamic systems in myriad ways and in varying degrees. Nevertheless, amidst such destructive diversity a common pattern emerges. Through excessive pollution or resource extraction—Excess and Deficiency—people burden ecosystems and the biosphere at rates these systems cannot sustain. Indeed, acid rain and tropical deforestation illustrate that human activity exceeds ecological tolerance margins, and in so doing disrupts an ecosystem’s self-regulating mechanisms. In essence, these artificial extremes symbolize the intra-environmental conflict— people are destroying their planetary home.

In addition to such scientific knowledge, we need to address the intra-environmental relationship’s moral dimension, so we turn to ethics. More to the point, we must discover moral goods and environmental values. To attain this goal, we return to Aristotle’s Ethics in light of humankind’s new-found power to so profoundly harm and destroy ecosystems. In Chapter 2, our ethical inquiry discovered that all people naturally desire happiness. Also, possessing human nature, each person has natural needs, which are satisfied by real goods. However, while people choose whether or not to acquire some real goods, other needs may be unsatisfied because certain resources remain beyond human control. For this reason, we called the former goods controllable and the latter, non-controllable. Further, virtue helps people acquire controllable goods, whereas non-controllable resources must be supplied by good fortune.

In this chapter, we explore Aristotle’s good fortune focusing upon its environmental component. First, by analyzing Aristotle’s remarks about an environmental duty and about Nature in general, we attempt to learn why Aristotle placed or would have placed the environment under the rubric of good fortune. Second, after a few quotes and some comments, I argue that Aristotle made an assumption about how much (actually, how little) humans influenced the environment. Third, we discuss if the artificial extremes have rendered this "non-controllable environment" assumption invalid. That is, "Who’s in environmental control?" Finally, we ask if humans have at least some role in destabilizing ecosystems, then does this fact affect the intra-environmental relation’s ethical status. In short, "Do people have a duty to avoid such destructive acts?" As a potential consequence we entertain the prospect that an environmental ethic is not only possible, but is in fact a necessary component to a happy life.

Like most philosophers throughout the ages, Aristotle never addressed how people should treat nature. Irrespective of what Aristotle believed, we can still append our modified version of his ethical theory into the ecologic realm. Everybody has the same basic needs, and one of those is a livable habitat. Thus, a healthy physical environment is an aspect of a happy life. Nevertheless, Aristotle often made general comments about Nature. Let us analyze a few quotations in the possibility that such a discussion will enable us to formulate an environmental ethic consistent with universal rights, responsiblilites and happiness.

To be sure, the evidence is inconclusive; and from such cryptic comments, we must avoid grandiose or bazaar conclusions. However, these quotations paint a possible, unspectacular portrait of ancient environmental perceptions: humans depend on a habitable environment over which they have insignificant control. This analysis may explain why Aristotle and many others never addressed an environmental ethic. If Nature was non-controllable, then it was part of good fortune. Therefore, Aristotle would fail to address the environment in terms of ethical duty—because moral responsibility did not exist. Important to our discussion, if a livable habitat is beyond human control, then is rests alongside health, freedom and other non-controllable factors which reside under good fortune’s shade.

If we state this "ecologic" perception more formally, we can probe the issue with greater precision. So, I propose a "working" assumption: Because people in previous centuries possessed such little power compared to the forces of Nature, they considered the environment non-controllable.

As we remember, a healthy organism needs an internal balance of various traits (e.g. temperature and nutrition) as well as an external habitat appropriate for its existence. This condition has a corollary: an organism can suffer harm or death in two ways—internally or externally. Focusing on the ecological realm, we classify the external effects according to the environmental proximity of its source, resulting in two broad categories—local and global. For example, the contamination of streams, rivers and lakes with PCB’s and other toxic chemicals is a local problem. In contrast, (though not uniformly distributed) ozone depletion has a global reach. Let us analyze the artificial extremes to see if they threaten human health.

What about local urban phenomena? In cities the exhaust from cars and industry concentrates and then reacts with sunlight to form ozone. When inhaled, along with other contaminants and airborne particulates, ozone causes respiratory damage.

Turning from air to land, flooding provides another example wherein people frequently suffer property damage, personal injury or even death. Yet upon reflection, floods may not always be so natural. For instance, when artificial development drains wetlands and concretes natural flood plains, do we consider the cause of the resulting damage, injury and death natural or artificial?

As we mentioned, uncertainty abounds; and some dynamic interactions may off-set a planetary warming by serving as a countervailing force or they may further destabilize the biosphere. Many researchers admit that climate warming is a "young science". A particular source of uncertainty is how higher temperatures will effect atmospheric clouds. Depending upon the type formed, clouds either can cool or can warm the planet.

Before we conclued this section, three points warrant our attention. First, in addition to being detrimental to a person’s physical welfare, environmental tragedies also inflict psychological damage. Under this heading, one can cite the emotional discontent due to the loss of aesthetic beauty or commercial property. Other relevant instances involve the psychological insecurity arising from living with a contaminated environment—e.g., to be afraid to drink water in Love Canal, New York, or to breath air in Mexico City. Although psychological discontent is difficult to quantify and is prone to exaggeration, the human psyche is affected by artificial extremes. So, psychological as well as physical damage can be debilitating.

Second, local and global threats are by no means mutually exclusive. On the contrary, many artificial extremes have effects that are both local and global. For instance while deforestation locally contributes to soil erosion, river siltation, increased flooding, it globally alters the hydrological and the carbon cycles, thereby exacerbating the artificial extremes of water diversion and global warming.

Life and health are fickle. As Aristotle knew, any of good fortune’s non-controllable factors could change to tragedy in an instant and become a handicap, thereby preventing happiness. In fact, he said,

To such predicaments, we must add ecological misfortunes. Natural disasters like earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes inflict injury and even death. So they frequently prevent happiness and must be viewed as uncontrollable, natural impediments. Yet, acid rain, ozone depletion, global climate change and other artificial extremes injure people physically and psychologically; humans are harming themselves. These latter environmental misfortunes must be seen as impeding happiness artificially. Because "misfortune" connotes beyond human control and "artificial" denotes human influence, this last sentence contains a contradiction. Since these irreconcilable concepts represent current issues of human and ecological health, Nature can no longer be considered uncontrollable.

What has happened to the intra-environmental relationship? Through population, affluence, and technology humans now so influence ecologic collectives that they harm themselves and the planet. We have enumerated many instances of such degradation. These and other ecological realities stand witness, in effect, to the environment’s being thrust from good fortune’s non-controllable realm and into the controllable sphere—more precisely, the semi-controllable sphere. Whether direct or indirect, local or global, these artificial, ecologic imbalances are detrimental to human health, and thereby impede happiness. Thus they invalidate the "non-controllable environment" assumption. Put simply, artificial extremes are semi-controllable impediments to human happiness.

Does humankind’s semi-controlled condition of Nature affect the ethical status of the intra-environmental relationship? Recognizing that people have the capacity to harm themselves through ecologic activity, we explore the possibility and the potential necessity of an environmental ethic.

Developing this point, two themes recur throughout the Ethics: l) a person’s duty is to acquire as many of the real goods that comprise happiness as possible; and 2) a happy life consists of good fortune and complete virtue. I hold that, in addition to other ethical relations, the "most complete virtue" must have an ecological component. Because the biosphere is necessary for life and because humankind can irreparably damage this planetary ecosystem, people have a duty to Nature. (In the next chapter, we discuss what the environmental duty entails.)

Earlier this century, American conservationist Aldo Leopold not only understood the intra-environmental conflict but also knew that the means for its peaceful resolution necessitated an ecologic ethic. In A Sand County Almanac, Leopold affirmed:

One reason that people do not give Nature its proper moral consideration is the asymmetry between the sciences of ecology and of ethics. Indeed, ecological knowledge has increased at an accelerating rate; but the moral understanding of the intra-environmental relationship has not kept pace because the modern world tends to consider ethical "truth" not as genuine knowledge but as mere opinion.

We know that people are interdependent beings in the biotic enterprise. We know that the biosphere self-regulates a dynamic steady-state equilibrium. We know that humans now exceed natural boundaries, thereby disrupting natural control mechanisms. Humans influence the ecosphere and its subsystems in unprecedented and spectacular dimensions. Indeed, Nature is semi-controlled by one of its biotic inhabitant—people. After 2400 years, after an exploding population and after escalating resource consumption, people have thrust good fortune’s environmental component into a semi-controllable state. With such influence and power comes moral responsibility.

So, what must be done? Within our modified version of Aristotle’s ethical framework, we must incorporate a moral component which recognizes ecological interdependence. We employ the same tools that Aristotle used (but with significantly less skill) to address moral rights and responsibilities, vices and virtues. In so doing we hope to discover an environmental ethic. To this task, we now turn...

I

To recomplete Aristotle’s Ethics, we must obtain a universal moral standard which regulates the intra-environmental relationship. To achieve this task, we analyze the human-biosphere link at both the qualitative and the quantitative level. Ultima