We have reached a point of disaster. Maybe irreparable, yet will fail to recognize that by virtue of destroying our environment we are destroying ourselves. Many place their recklessness on that god gave us “dominion” over the Earth. In other words, through religion people have come to justify the belief that the world is ours to do as we please. But, this is not a logical premise that allows us to destroy the environment. We are failing to make the connection.
The world may very well be for us to do as we please. However, the undeniable fact is that soon it will not exist as our home. That you own something does not mean that you do not have to take care of it. In fact, it is in your best interest to care for it.
Take, for instance, the owner of a mansion. According to the law once a person buys the house it is for them to do whatever they want. Now, do you think whoever buys this house would want to bomb and tare it down? A person who does this is a very foolish. Because why invest in the house if you are later to destroy it.
It might be simple to make the connection with a person who invests in a house. But it is the same for us and our environment. The environment is our collective home. Why would we want to destroy it? Why destroy our investment? The truth is we are in fact destroying our investment, our hard work. That is the connection we are failing to make.
Thus, even if in fact the world is for us to do as we please that does not mean we should completely wreck it. That is stupid and economically speaking unproductive.
Using the old testament’s story of Adam and Eve, as a pretext for destroying Earth, is completely inconsistent with the laws of business, in that we are going to loose our investment, and inconsistent with survival, in that we are virtually self-destructing ourselves.
Somehow people view the environment as something distant and unrelated to us. And that is at the epicenter of our problem. And yes, people hear that destroying the environment is amoral and that we should not do it, but is that really how we should solve the problem?
The fact is that people know that lies are not moral, yet most continue to do it. We don’t seem to be bound by what is moral, at least a lot of us. Thus, we must see the problem in more practical terms. Yes, the problem may be a moral one as Gore puts it, but that is not a problem we are readily able to solve.
The concept of morality has not been part of humans for the vast majority of our existence. Not even with the beginning of cities in 3000 BCE were we moral or even morality recognizing beings. One can say that the concept of morality only appeared in the last 2500 years.
Morality as we know it started to appear in the world around 500 BCE. Hence, historians call it the Axial Age. They call it axial because historians tend to think that we as a species suffered a significant spin in our views and beliefs of the world. This is when the Golden Age of Athens took place, when the Buddha lived, When the Confucius lived and when the Hebrew prophets started to appear.
In Athens, the discipline of philosophy was developed after the Axial Age. Philosophers started acknowledging the concept of justice. The Greeks started thinking about what was right in itself and what was wrong in itself.
In India, the social division of caste started to be questioned by the Buddha. The Buddha, started questioning the idea that people are born in a certain caste and hence, fulfilling the dharma (duty) of their caste was everybody’s obligation. For the Buddha, people had to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth by means of avoiding fallowing ones pleasures and desires. For him the establishment of the caste system was no longer and moral or ethical thing to impose.
In China, Confucius developed his ideas on filial piety, during the Axial Age. Confucius philosophy now placed significant importance in family ties. People owed respect to their elders and ancestors; that is what being a truly virtuous person meant.
In the Middle East, a group of people called the Hebrews started developing the ideas of the Judeo-Christian belief, during the Axial Age. Hebrews started developing a monotheistic belief system, where the sole god of worship must be the omnipotent god Yahweh. Here rests the birth of morality in the Middle East, which later influenced the birth of Christianity. People no longer saw themselves and the supreme beings as egocentric and inconsiderate. Being virtuous and moral now meant people had to do what was right not to expect anything in return but just because it was the moral and right thing to do.
For instance, Hebrews adapted the old Mesopotamian flood story to their monotheistic and moral philosophy. Noah’s Ark is almost an identical copy to the flood story in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. But they differed in one important aspect. First in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods (notice plural) sent the flood because people were being too noisy, whereas in Noah’s Ark the flood was a consequence of people’s misbehaving. For ancient Mesopotamians, the gods were beings with identical characteristics to humans; they were self-centered, illogical and driven by impulses and desires. The only difference was that the gods were immortal. But for Hebrews, after the appearance of the prophets, the flood was a consequence of peoples immorality and sin.
Thus, of the 160,000 years of human existence, morality has existed for only 2, 500 years. Yet it was not always consistent that people acted in a moral way. In fact, one can merely say that the concept of morality has existed for some 2,500 years, but not that people have been moral beings for 2,500 years. We are yet to be moral. Though we emphasize the importance of being moral and doing the right thing, we do not always act in that way. What makes Gore say that we have to go back to our original state of morality, when we have not ever been moral? In fact for most of our existence we didn’t even recognize what morality was.
Hence, in order to fix the immense problem, which we are facing today we must see it as a practicality. In other words, caring for the environment is in our interest because it is financially beneficial to us. Not only are we killing our investment and hard-work by destroying the environment, but we are jeopardizing our very ability to exist. That, I think is the connection people must envision. We must recognize the importance of the following equation:
Caring for the environment = Financial benefit and protection + survival.
The world may very well be for us to do as we please. However, the undeniable fact is that soon it will not exist as our home. That you own something does not mean that you do not have to take care of it. In fact, it is in your best interest to care for it.
Take, for instance, the owner of a mansion. According to the law once a person buys the house it is for them to do whatever they want. Now, do you think whoever buys this house would want to bomb and tare it down? A person who does this is a very foolish. Because why invest in the house if you are later to destroy it.
It might be simple to make the connection with a person who invests in a house. But it is the same for us and our environment. The environment is our collective home. Why would we want to destroy it? Why destroy our investment? The truth is we are in fact destroying our investment, our hard work. That is the connection we are failing to make.
Thus, even if in fact the world is for us to do as we please that does not mean we should completely wreck it. That is stupid and economically speaking unproductive.
Using the old testament’s story of Adam and Eve, as a pretext for destroying Earth, is completely inconsistent with the laws of business, in that we are going to loose our investment, and inconsistent with survival, in that we are virtually self-destructing ourselves.
Somehow people view the environment as something distant and unrelated to us. And that is at the epicenter of our problem. And yes, people hear that destroying the environment is amoral and that we should not do it, but is that really how we should solve the problem?
The fact is that people know that lies are not moral, yet most continue to do it. We don’t seem to be bound by what is moral, at least a lot of us. Thus, we must see the problem in more practical terms. Yes, the problem may be a moral one as Gore puts it, but that is not a problem we are readily able to solve.
The concept of morality has not been part of humans for the vast majority of our existence. Not even with the beginning of cities in 3000 BCE were we moral or even morality recognizing beings. One can say that the concept of morality only appeared in the last 2500 years.
Morality as we know it started to appear in the world around 500 BCE. Hence, historians call it the Axial Age. They call it axial because historians tend to think that we as a species suffered a significant spin in our views and beliefs of the world. This is when the Golden Age of Athens took place, when the Buddha lived, When the Confucius lived and when the Hebrew prophets started to appear.
In Athens, the discipline of philosophy was developed after the Axial Age. Philosophers started acknowledging the concept of justice. The Greeks started thinking about what was right in itself and what was wrong in itself.
In India, the social division of caste started to be questioned by the Buddha. The Buddha, started questioning the idea that people are born in a certain caste and hence, fulfilling the dharma (duty) of their caste was everybody’s obligation. For the Buddha, people had to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth by means of avoiding fallowing ones pleasures and desires. For him the establishment of the caste system was no longer and moral or ethical thing to impose.
In China, Confucius developed his ideas on filial piety, during the Axial Age. Confucius philosophy now placed significant importance in family ties. People owed respect to their elders and ancestors; that is what being a truly virtuous person meant.
In the Middle East, a group of people called the Hebrews started developing the ideas of the Judeo-Christian belief, during the Axial Age. Hebrews started developing a monotheistic belief system, where the sole god of worship must be the omnipotent god Yahweh. Here rests the birth of morality in the Middle East, which later influenced the birth of Christianity. People no longer saw themselves and the supreme beings as egocentric and inconsiderate. Being virtuous and moral now meant people had to do what was right not to expect anything in return but just because it was the moral and right thing to do.
For instance, Hebrews adapted the old Mesopotamian flood story to their monotheistic and moral philosophy. Noah’s Ark is almost an identical copy to the flood story in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. But they differed in one important aspect. First in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods (notice plural) sent the flood because people were being too noisy, whereas in Noah’s Ark the flood was a consequence of people’s misbehaving. For ancient Mesopotamians, the gods were beings with identical characteristics to humans; they were self-centered, illogical and driven by impulses and desires. The only difference was that the gods were immortal. But for Hebrews, after the appearance of the prophets, the flood was a consequence of peoples immorality and sin.
Thus, of the 160,000 years of human existence, morality has existed for only 2, 500 years. Yet it was not always consistent that people acted in a moral way. In fact, one can merely say that the concept of morality has existed for some 2,500 years, but not that people have been moral beings for 2,500 years. We are yet to be moral. Though we emphasize the importance of being moral and doing the right thing, we do not always act in that way. What makes Gore say that we have to go back to our original state of morality, when we have not ever been moral? In fact for most of our existence we didn’t even recognize what morality was.
Hence, in order to fix the immense problem, which we are facing today we must see it as a practicality. In other words, caring for the environment is in our interest because it is financially beneficial to us. Not only are we killing our investment and hard-work by destroying the environment, but we are jeopardizing our very ability to exist. That, I think is the connection people must envision. We must recognize the importance of the following equation:
Caring for the environment = Financial benefit and protection + survival.
2 comments:
Finances. Ha. Money always brings to mind a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"[The planet Earth] had a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of papaer, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
I think the sooner we all figure that out, the better.
Pragmatism could be a way to go. Whatever works, I say.
I think that Gore is trying to tap on an important part of (ok, recent) human experience (which is also what gives him his impulse): most humans believe in some sort of creator or life force behind the universe.
Post a Comment