for global ethics (again)

In the article “Ecological Citizenship and Global Justice: Two Paths Converging?” Andrew Dobson provides a unique framework for discussing environmental justice. Defining the discussion in terms of charity and justice, Dobson argues that because of the obvious offenses of the North against the South, our “aid” administered after weather disasters in developing regions is not charity at all, but rather something that is owed to them for offenses long on the books. It is interesting that Dobson sticks to Shiva’s use of the terms North and South instead of West/Rest or Developed/Undeveloped. I think it is appropriate because even “underdeveloped” and non-Western countries (or regions of countries) in the North are wreaking environmental havoc on low lying Southern hemisphere nations via global warming.

For my undergraduate senior thesis, I wrote briefly about (but did not finally include) something I referred to as “passive violence.” This is, to me, what Northern gluttony can be equated with. Though after further consideration, I think “comfort violence” is more appropriate. What I mean by this phrase is that because of the consciousness that once we are developed we can do what we want and wish to remain comfortable in our habits, we inflict horrible circumstances and death on millions of people whom we do not recognize as worthy. This touches on something Ram Guha discussed last Monday at his talk “How much should a person consume?” (after his book by the same title). Guha stated two dangerous fallacies that exist: 1) that of the “romantic economist” which states that were the market allowed free rein, all people on earth would achieve a lifestyle equal to that of a middle class American and 2) that of the “romantic environmentalist” which is that small, rural, non-consuming societies wish to remain forever small, rural, and non-consuming. I confess that I am often thinking along the lines of the romantic environmentalist and wishing my way back to “simpler” times when even Americans understood ecology and consequences and kids played outside with sticks. While we cannot assume that the undeveloped wish to remain unvaccinated and underfed, we must also acknowledge that it is our comfort which prevents the undeveloped from reaching their desired lifestyle status on their own. Further, it is our comfort which represents an unrealistic idea of what is globally available to all people on earth.

It is right that Dobson concludes his essay by removing the “?” from the title of his work. It is clear that ecological citizenship requires a very clear sense of global justice and this must begin in our everyday actions. It is not enough to send aid to storm victims or to condemn political leaders for fighting violently over land rights. It is our messes that the world is forced to clean up. Human ingenuity is abundant, but we have gotten lazy in recent decades. Appealing to American (and Indian and Chinese) pride in accomplishment may be the next viable step to take against global warming (i.e. fossil fuel usage) as one interviewee in the documentary “Too Hot Not to Handle” put so eloquently, “The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of rocks; it ended because we found something better.” Instead of lazily inflicting violence on the less developed of our planet, we must use Dobson’s model: marrying the ideals of charity and justice, ability with responsibility, in an effort that could literally save our species.