I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.
In this context what does “careful and responsible management” mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature as we squander ours and all succeeding generations’ inheritance. How does a nation convince its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
How is it possible to convince a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Would it be possible to convince the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of an unsophisticated people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based or the people must become more sophisticated quickly.
Perhaps a compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality appears to be insufficient for creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.
These are the two labels you choose…
Steward - 1. a person who manages another’s property or financial affairs; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others.
Caretaker - 1. One that is employed to look after or take charge of goods, property, or a person; a custodian.
Notice the levels of separation. The person is taking care of other people’s stuff. It is as if the relationship is not one of belonging, but more professional. and in whose stead or service are we taking care: God?
Much as I sympathize with your intentions here, it seems to me you have a kind relationship based on the same kinds of faulty philosophical assumptions the ones who destroy the world do. That we are separate from this place. That we must be good or compensated in some way.
For me the earth and nature are my home, my family. It is literally my mother. I do not need a moral stance or a ‘role’ to take care of her and be taken care of by her. These flow naturally out of the intimacy I notice.
Perhaps some people do not belong here and so they never had nor will they never come to have this intimacy. I don’t know. But convincing them to be kind and become caretakers or stewards seems to beg the question…why don’t they automatically grieve when she is injured?
I suspect that it is because the vast majority of the citizens in America (I suspect this applies to all nations) lack the sophistication to comprehend what they are doing. If we do not quickly become more intellectually sophisticated we will self destruct and possibly take all life on this planet with us.
No. We are destroying the planet all too rapidly. The human population is too large to be sustainable. If human society doesn’t get manage this issue rationally, famine, disease, and violent conflict will.
Again, I wish all luck workign on the intellectual side. But I suspect that something deeper is going on. It is not my intellect that lets me know 1) that I love and care about nature 2) that nature is being severely damaged. So, again, I wonder why others are not connected in this way.
By the state of the planet, I am guessing that we are not - those in power just want to make more money, with no regard for the consequences that they are having on the planet!
We would need to live in a more balanced and harmonious state with the planet than we are now, or create bio-spheres to contain any harmful emissions from industry…
we have no obligation to “take care of” the planet itself, much less any life on it, other than our own. every species acts in its best interests, and does its best within its own limitations to subdue and control its environment as best it can, to ensure its own survival as an individual (individual self-interest produces in an emergent fashion group survival and growth).
man is no different.
at the point where this behavior becomes detrimental to our own survival, our actions will become undesirable or “wrong”; however, theres still nothing “wrong” or bad about it from the standpoint of evolution, history or nature itself. if we continue to abuse resources and our environment to the point where life becomes unsustainable, then we will suffer as a species because of it-- natural consequences. nothing wrong with that.
however, thats not the point being made by the OP or other likewise arguments. the idea that there is some sort of intrinsic value in the planet itself or in other species or lifeforms is patheticly irrational. unjustified from any perspective. there is no harm done if we exterminate a species of frogs because we wanted to build a power plant on their habitat. who cares? life goes on, species evolve and perish all the time in nature, in cycles across eons. nature will continue to survive and adapt to our presence, and even if it did not, it wouldnt matter anyways. we have no obligation to “care about” or “save” other species or the “planet” itself (even saying we should “care for the planet” is a gross overgeneralization, a clear example of vague unspecific thinking intended to evoke emotional reactions only).
if we act irresponsible with our power over nature, i.e. if we degrade our environment to the point where it causes our species to suffer, then we will suffer natural consequences of that. that is the only sense that we have any sort of obligation or responsibility to care for any aspect of life or nature outside of our own individual and family/offspring survival. anything else is just sentimentalist emotionalism, blatantly irrational and in direct contradiction to our evolutionary imperative to survive and protect/progress our genetic lineage at all costs.
Well said, TTG. What is this pathetic need people have to idolize everything? Is it some form of self-loathing mis-directed at a species level? We’re not “stewards” of the planet. Stewards implies it belongs to somebody else. We own the planet because we’re the dominant species and our responsibility is to ourselves. Environmental consciousness is perfectly compatible with that outlook, In fact, it’s a necessary imperative.
