index of papers

Environmental Ethics and the Poor

Silvia Elguea
Mexico

Introduction: The vision for an Environmental Ethics applied to the Third World is discussed in this article. The problems concerning the Third World, including poverty are different than the ones in the developed countries such as the U.S. Deep Ecology, a part of American Environmentalism and it is hard to address it as a solution to the Third World Environmental Crisis. Deep Ecology addresses some of the problems for the American Environment, but not all of them such as over consumption and growing militarism. Deep Ecology maintains an emphasis on preserving biotic diversity to the detriment of human needs, maintains that a biocentric environmental ethics versus an anthropocentric is part of the solution, but each culture and each community must solve their problems in their own way , wilderness conservation as we understand it nowadays has worked for the rich and not for the poor, environmental revolution is a movement started in rich nations, or by people who have solved their basic needs.

A proposal for an Environmental Ethics sustained in this article is a more holistic rather than biocentric or anthropocentric, which takes into account the cultural, sociological and historical problems as well, an environmental ethics which takes into consideration not only Nature, but humans as a part of nature. Every culture would find their own unique form of solving their local problems. To support this point of view I am using the critique that Ramahandra Guha has made to Deep Ecology and giving as examples the case of India and of the state of Chiapas, Mexico.

Deep Ecology. The term Deep Ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Näess, and then the movement continued in the U.S. One of its main representatives is George Sessions. Deep Ecology argues that the anthropocentric view should be shifted to a much broader biocentric perspective. What we call “shallow ecology” is presented in an anthropocentric way, that is to say, narrowly human, terms. Eastern spiritual traditions are considered more biocentric than the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West. Deep ecologists believe they lead American and World environmentalism.

Deep ecology argues that the environmental movement should shift from an anthropocentric to a biocentric perspective. They intend to show that Western philosophy has been more anthropocentric. Thinkers such as Leopold, Thoreau, Muir, Aldoux Huxley, Santayana are deep ecologists. The problem is that the anthropocentric-biocentric movement distinction is accepted as axiomatic by deep ecologists.

For deep ecologists preserving nature has an intrinsic worth independently of humans or their benefit for future generations. They want to preserve the world in a more pristine way preserving wilderness because nature has an intrinsic value. The preservation of wilderness also turns on a scientific argument. Viz. The value of biological diversity in stabilizing ecological regimes and in retaining a gene pool for future generations.

There is a mainstream of these deep-ecologists who believe they will find their spiritual basis on Eastern traditions and primal peoples in non Western settings, such as the Native Americans or other primal people. Deep ecologists seek also for a spiritual basis, rather renewing the Judeo-Christian tradition and another looking for a more biocentric concentration in other cultures. This is why another case in included here the one for Chiapas and their people.

Although there are definitions of the deep ecology movement, there are some supporters of deep ecology who do not follow deep ecology, and they fall on shallow ecology, and some others who seem to disagree, but they accept a different set of deep ecology movements. Basically, deep ecologists give nature an idea of a living standing. This idea is part of many cultures.

Environmental Ethics in the Third World

The Third World is different than the developed countries. It is overpopulated, but the majority of the people are poor. There is a need for development, which must be done without risking the future of the other generations. The case of India, for example is different than in the United States, where most of the people are poor and are working for the rich, a minority. They have an idea of conservation, but it is very different from the Conservation/utilitarian movement of the United States.

Vandana Shiva, an Indian theoretical physicist also includes specifically the case of Women and the Environment. She believes that each of us should concentrate on his or her country and try to effect local locally. This is an example of the saying “think globally, act locally.”

Another case where there is also a big population, but for different reasons is the case of Chiapas, where there is also an agrarian society and where people live because of their land. In the case of Chiapas there is a long history of Colonialism which started long time ago in the 16 th and 17 th centuries.

So, if Human dominion has got us into trouble is there an answer in other traditions. Should we change our world-view? Is the scientific-rational worldview the one to blame? Or is it that we take into account humans as first. If some humans disappear from the face of the Earth will we solve the problem? Is conservation just having a lot of wilderness around? It seems to be rather complicated taking into account an integrated whole.

The indigenous people of Mexico, like the peoples in India respect the natural order because it is their livelihood and workplace. The land and the environment is their resource to survive, this attitude is also part of their culture And this is probably true in most of the countries of the Third World.

There has been a social unrest in the state of Chiapas during the last decade; through this unrest we can give a glimpse to the relation of some of the indigenous people and Nature. This unrest is a product of poverty and Colonialism.

Chiapas has been the clash between traditional values and modern commodity agriculture. They still use traditional methods to raise their crops. By the time the Chiapas unrest started the population of Chiapas was formed by different indigenous groups, such as Tetzil, Chol, Tojolobal, Tzeltal, Zoques 80 percent of them living under the poverty line.

The inequitable distribution of wealth started since the 16 and 17 centuries. During the past years the selling of coffee, bananas, oil palm, cattle and lumber on international markets led the Spanish descendent people, as well as the indigenous to clear huge areas of the rainforest In the state of Chiapas the wooded area has dropped from 44.5 to 21.7 percent. The farmers are also a cause of this destruction, but greed and corruption from the government and international companies are the more to blame.

The farmers owned land in Chiapas called Ejidos. This is a system emerged from the 1910 Mexican Revolution where indigenous communities held 5 percent of the total in common. This land could not be sold, transferred or mortgaged. The slogan was “La tierra es del que la trabaja” so they owned their community plot to work on it, but if the land was not used for two years, it was subject to confiscation. There were some legislative changes in 1994 that changed this right allowing the small ejidos to become private property. This was the main cause of the Zapatista uprising which continues until 1997. Today they seem to be resting, but the conflict has not been solved completely.

Indigenous relation to their land and their identity with it has provoked some changes so the individual is not looked as a whole but the perspective of a mysterious dynamic reciprocity, individuality and independence were really illusions.

The solution does not seem simple, because in spite of being a global problem, the solution has to be local, taking into account the communities, but without forgetting the land. The land needs to rest, but people need the place and land to live.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

3. IS THERE A NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS?

• Is there a necessary conflict between environmental ethics and free-enterprise capitalism? This is a myth promoted by the current administration in Washington , by certain proponents of globalism, and by some multinational corporations.
  
• Relation to sustainable development: The reality is indicated by a KLRU television show on Saturday 11 Feb about the need for “green enterprise”, how business when informed by environmental ethics may actually not just preserve or enhance the environment, but may also be more profitable.
  
• Relation to the poor people of the world: Small scale enterprises are often more sustainable than large-scale enterprises in the sense of both providing people with an income and helping preserve the environment. “Economies of scale.” do NOT always operate.
  
• Environmental ethics and the “wilderness” controversy: who benefits and who pays?

NOTES

“…the emphasis on wilderness preservation is harmful to the Third World in three ways: it tends to benefit the rich and deprive the poor; it leads to neglect of more pressing environmental problems; and it encourages imperialistic yearnings of Western conservationists.” (Guha, 296)

(Guha, 297)

(Guha, 298)

“One should not expect too much from definitions of movements: think for example, of terms like ‘conservatism,’ ‘liberalism’ or the ‘feminist movement’ And there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any definition, for that matter.” (Näes, 196)

“… preservationist/utilitarian division is seen as mirroring the conflict between “people and interests”, in India the situation is the reverse. Because India is a long settled and densely populated country in which agrarian populations have a fine balanced relationship with nature, the setting aside of wilderness areas has resulted in a direct transfer of resources from the poor to the rich.” (Guha, 298)

“ The cosmos of indigenous peoples often dissolves into a thousand, seemingly irreconcilable contradictions when we focus our attention on the particulars of such native views” (Kwiatkowska p. 267) Human Technology and human greed have changed the subsistence lifestyle of many native people who once had a more harmonious relationship with nature into one of survival at the expense of nature” (Kwaitotwoska,268)

“The state of Chiapas is located in southern Mexico , it borders with Guatemala . This state is rich in biodiversity and it is filled with poor people. It contains 28 percent of Mexico ’s species of vascular plants 80 percent of the tropical tress, 80 percent of the butterflies, 33 percent of the aquatic animals, 37 percent of the mammals and 67 percent of the birds, Thirty percent of the national reserves of water are in aquifers there.” (Kwaitotwoska, 269)

“When human identities are no longer tied to places, when entire communities are displaced, the commitment to the ecological sustainability of place is altered. The meaning that places have held is no longer consonant with nature, they are now seen as resources to be exploited.” (Kwaitowska, 271)

REFERENCES

Näess, Arne. ¨The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.¨, in Zimmerman et al. Environmental Philosophy. From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1993. pp. 193-211

Kwaitowska, Teresa. ¨From the Mexican Chiapas Crisis: A different Perspective for Environmental Ethics¨, in Environmental Ethics Vol. 19. Fall 1997.pp 267-277

To leave comments on this paper: click here.

To read comments already contributed: click here.

index of papers