An Ethical Perspective of some of the Economic and Environmental Issues Raised by the Introduction of Nile Perch into
Table
of contents
1. Introduction
2. Economic Issues
3. Core Environmental Problem
4. Various Ethical Responses
4.1.
Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism
4.2.
Singer’s Utilitarian Environmentalism
4.3. Regan’s Kantian
Environmentalism
4.4
Taylor ’s
Kantian Environmentalism
4.5 Deep Ecology
5. Conclusion
6. Reference list
7. Declaration
1.
Introduction
In the film “Darwin ’s
nightmare”, a number of issues were highlighted which followed the introduction
of a non-indigenous species, the Nile Perch, into Lake
Victoria . Robert Pringle (2005:510) quotes biologist E.O.Wilson
describing this as “the most catastrophic extinction episode of recent history.”
The Nile Perch prey on and devour all other fish. Algae eating cichlids have
been depleted leading, in turn to a decrease in oxygen in the lake. As a
result, the lake is dying. Compounding problems, the perch eat their young and
year on year catches are decreasing dramatically. The situation is clearly not
sustainable.
In this short essay, I will look
firstly at the economic issues involved; secondly, at the core environmental
problem; and thirdly, at various ethical responses to the environmental
problem; and will close with some concluding remarks.
2.Economic
Issues
Kayiso Fulgencio (2009:433) comments
on the economic issues surrounding the Lake Victoria
fisheries and points out how the positive effects of the industrial fisheries
have not trickled down to the small scale fishing communities and have in fact
left them marginalised and impoverished. “As a consequence, the fishery is
today characterized by unemployment, malnutrition, food insecurity,
environmental health hazards and criminal activities such as theft and piracy.”
3.The
Core Environmental problem
The core environmental problem is
that the economic boom brought about by the introduction of the Nile perch, has led to the degradation of the environment
(the lake and its surrounds), the extinction of some of the species (fish) and
the overgrowth of other species (algae). This has all taken place in order to
satisfy the exotic desires of humans on another continent, for the meat of the Nile perch.
Rolston 3rd (2003)
points out that animals are often casualties of human inabilities to manage
themselves and their resources and he asks whether animals should always lose and people win. The Lake
Victoria fishing industry shows that in the long term, people
actually lose as well, as the actions of people cumulate and produce large
scale changes.
Several nations recognise that
humans have a right to an environment that is healthy. Section 24 of the Bill
of Rights in the Republic
of South Africa
The remainder of this essay will,
using the Lake Victoria fisheries example,
seek to show from an ethics point of view, what, if any, duties humans have to the
environment and why. It will also seek to answer whether or not the environment
has or should have moral status.
4.
Various Ethical responses
4.1.
Anthropocentricism versus biocentrism
One’s ethical response to
environmental issues is going to depend on the decision one takes regarding who
or what deserves moral recognition, such that it can be meaningfully claimed
that they have suffered a moral wrong. On the one side will be
anthropocentrism, a human centred approach which assigns significantly greater
value to human beings than to non–human entities, so that the protection or
promotion of human interest or well being at the expense of non-human entities
is almost always justified; on the other side is ecologism where both living
beings and their environment are
considered to have value.
John O Neil (2001:164) discusses
the claim that to hold an environmental ethic is to hold that beings and states
of affair in the non-human world have “intrinsic value”. This claim is taken to
distinguish “deep” biocentric ethical theory from the more traditional
“shallow” and anthropocentric counterparts. Intrinsic value implies that non
human beings and entities are not simply of value as a means to human ends, but
are ends in themselves, either in the sense of being valued for their own sake
or more strongly of having ethical standing.
Holmes 3rd (2003:458) links the
above idea to economics in claiming that developed nations are wealthy enough
to be concerned about saving nature whereas “developing nations want anthropocentrism
with absolutely no concern for the
environment, loud and clear.” The Lake Victoria Fishing Industry shows, I
believe, the results of anthropocentrism with absolutely no concern for the environment, loud and clear.
The basis for most formulations of
eco–centrism is Aldo Leopold’s brief essay “The Land Ethic.” According to Fieser
(1992:37), Leopold opens his essay by noting that the basis of ethics is the
evolution of modes of co-operation and he argues that there are three stages in
this development. The first stage involves co-operative relation between individuals;
the second stage involves the relationship between individual and society. The
third stage is the extension of ethics to “man’s relation to land and to the
animals and plants which grow upon it”. He calls this stage the land ethic and notes that it “simply
enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and
animals, or collectively: the land”. He argues for the development of an
ecological conscience that is not guided by economic concerns. As pointed out
earlier, this is easier for developed nations than for developing nations.
The key to Leopold’s ecocentrism is
his dictum that “a thing is right when it tends to conserve the integrity,
stability and beauty of the biotic community; it is wrong when it tends
otherwise”. [Quoted in Fieser (1992:39)]. Fieser points out that the most extreme
interpretation of this principle is that the highest good is the preservation
of the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community and all other
duties stem from this, thus making Leopold’s principle a consequentialist
theory of morality. Fieser then quotes William Aiken (1984:269) who argues that
“the logical consequence of this view is the elimination of 90% of all human
animals since such a reduction would clearly advance the integrity, stability
and beauty of biotic community.”
I like Aiken’s honesty, and also Fieser’s,
who goes on to say “interpreted in this way, the implications of Leopold’s
principle are highly unacceptable.” I have concentrated on Leopold’s principles
and these responses to it because it highlights for me a weakness in much of
eco-centric ethics and that is that they are unwilling to really put the environment first and the environment’s biggest
enemy, humans, lower down. (This essay does not allow for an in depth study regarding
whether or not humans are generally good or generally bad for the environment
but using Lake Victoria as an example, it is relatively easy to suggest that
humans are generally bad for the environment, and that if Lake Victoria were
left for a few million years without any
human interference, it would probably recover to its former state). As will be
seen in the views that follow, they all seem to want to maintain humans’ place
in the environment, ignoring the fact that the environment, the whole planet, would be better off
without humans.
Des Jardins (1993:241), discussing
ecology and ecofeminism suggests that environmental and ecological destruction
(of the type, for example, that we see in Lake Victoria) is best understood as
a form of human domination of nature and that to understand this crisis more
fully, we need to understand more general patterns of human domination over
other humans. This calls for identifying and analysing patterns of domination
and oppression within society and evaluating these in order to give rise to an
ecological vision based on a model of social justice in which human beings are
free from oppression and domination.
Applying this analysis to the Lake
Victoria fishing industry, one sees that it is not primarily an issue of
domination of one species of fish over another, but rather the domination of
one group of people (i.e. first world fish eaters) over another group of people
(i.e. third world lake dwellers) with one of the many casualties being the
environment.
Either the environment counts and
is worthy of moral recognition or it doesn’t. What follows is a summary from
Sterba (2001:27-49) of various ethical approaches to the environment.
4.2.
Singer’s Utilitarian Environmentalism
Based on the principle of equal
consideration, a central principle of utilitarian ethics, Singer says it is
unjustifiable to give greater weight to the human species over other species in
the case of conflict and he likens this “speciesism” with biases against blacks
and women. Because animals have a capacity for suffering and enjoyment, they
have interests and there is no justification for regarding the pain animals
feel as less important as the same amount of pain (or pleasure) humans feel.
Singer suggests we give the same respect to the lives of animals as we give to
the lives of humans at a similar mental level.
4.3.
Regan’s Kantian Environmentalism
Regan believes that what is wrong
with our treatment of non-humans is that it implies they are simply resources
for our use. He feels that because they are experiencing subjects of life, they
have inherent value and are thus entitled to equal respect. To those who might
contend that animals have inherent value, but to a lesser degree than humans,
Regan argues that this view would only be defendable if similarly deficient
humans were also seen as having less inherent value.
Both Singer and Regan appear biased
against certain forms of life. For Singer, it is sentient beings that count and for Regan, it is experiencing subjects of life that have
inherent value. Paul Taylor takes up these issues.
4.4.
Taylor
- Humans are
members of Earth’s community of life.
- All living
things are related to one another in an order of interdependence.
- Each
organism is a teleological centre of life.
- The
assertion of human superiority is groundless.
(From Sterba
2001:30)
His view, as it is applied to the Lake Victoria issue, enables a viewpoint which not only
considers the humans and animals but also the ecosystem of which they are a
part. This brings me to the final ethical approach to the environment, namely deep ecology.
4.5.
Deep Ecology
Whereas in the above mentioned
approaches nature has no value apart from the needs, interests and good of
human beings, and could be called “shallow ecology”, deep ecology hold that
nature has value in its own right independent of the interests of humans.
Des Jardins (1993:216) refers to
the work of Naess and Sessions and summarizes the deep ecology platform in the
following eight points:
1. The flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth has intrinsic
value. The value of nonhuman life-forms is independent of the usefulness these
may have for narrow human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life-forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6. Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
2. Richness and diversity of life-forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6. Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
I find point 3 disturbing because
of the idea that the environment is a means to an end, namely, the satisfying
of humans vital needs and illustrates for me how anthropocentrism permeates
even deep ecology.
5.
Conclusion
Human contact with the Lake Victoria ecosystem has led to its degradation to the
point where the lake itself is dying. In this essay I have looked at the
economic issues involved, at the core environmental problem of non–sustainability
due to the anthropocentric view of the Lake Victoria
fisheries towards the environment, and discussed various ethical responses.
I have attempted to show that as
long as humans exist, anthropocentrism will permeate any ethical response to
environmental problems.
6.
Reference list
Aiken, W.1984. Ethical Issues in
Agriculture. Earthbound Ed Tom Regan.
New York :
Random House [In Fieser, J. 1992 below]
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Des Jardins, J.1993. Environmental
Ethics. Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing.
Fieser, J. 1992. Leopold and the
compatibility of Eco-centric morality. In: International
Journal of Applied Philosophy. Vol7:37-41. Available http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/research/leopold.htm[accessed
16-4-2010]
Fulgencio, K.
2009. Globalisation of the Nile perch:
Assessing the sociocultural
implications of the Lake Victoria fishery in Uganda . African Journal of Political Science and International Relations
Vol. 3 (10): 433-442. Available http://www.academicjournals.org/ajpsir/PDF/Pdf2009/October/Fulgencio%20pdf.pdf [Accessed 16/4/2010]
O’Neill, J. 2001. Meta-ethics. In:
A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Dale Jamieson(Ed). Oxford : Blackwell Publishers: 163-176
Rolston 3rd, H. 1996.
Earth Ethics. In: Earth Summit
Ethics. J.B.Calliath and F.J.R da Rocha (Eds). NY: State
University and New York Press:161-192.
Rolston 3rd, H. 2003.
Feeding People versus Saving Nature.
In: Environmental Ethics. A. Light
and H. Rolston 3rd (Eds)
NY: Blackwell Publishers: 451-462
Sterba, J. P. 2001.Three challenges
to Ethics. New York : Oxford University
