Environmental justice refers to equitable distribution of environmental goods among human populations, often referring to inequitable distribution of environmental burdens such as hazardous and polluting industries to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities or the economically disadvantaged populations. Supported by the popular rhetoric of sustainable development, intergenerational justice is conceived as justice between present and future generations of human beings.
Environmental justice refers to equitable distribution of environmental goods among human populations, often referring to inequitable distribution of environmental burdens such as hazardous and polluting industries to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities or the economically disadvantaged populations. Supported by the popular rhetoric of sustainable development, intergenerational justice is conceived as justice between present and future generations of human beings.However, the less discussed type of justice is that between humans and other species, often referred to as ecological justice or biospheric egalitarianism (BE). Unlike IEET’s position that the moral status of non-humans depends upon their relationship to sentience and personhood, this position is more akin to the deep ecology stance that recognizes that "nature" or "all living things" have rights. This position of BE agrees with the IEETs stance which basically postulates that persons have rights, and sentience obliges us not to cause unnecessary pain. However, BE does not treat nature as a moral import in regards to its utility to persons. Biospheric egalitarianism is concerned with other species independent of their instrumental value for humans.
BE stance is also somewhat different from the deep ecology perspective in as much as it does not stress the view that humans are part of the ecosystem. BE actually assumes that the human interconnectedness and interdependency with nature is obvious. What is much more important in the present age of human population and consumption growth, is that this relationship is based on clear hierarchy and relationship characterised by superiority – if not to say supremacy – of humans over nature.
What is much more important in the present age of human population and consumption growth, is that this relationship is based on clear hierarchy and relationship characterised by superiority – if not to say supremacy – of humans over nature.Some scholars have argued that there are many ways in which non-human species have been granted a greater degree of moral standing in neo-liberal societies than was previously the case. The rise of ethical vegetarianism in the West, the public policies that protect animal rights all suggests a decrease in the objectification of animals among critical segments of society.
Yet, while there are many testimonials to people’s concerns for individual animals or plants, there is no consistent discussion about the scale of instrumental use of other species. The scale of human use of animals or plants – directly for consumption or indirectly through actions such as forest clearings, have increased exponentially with human population growth and increase in consumption. While the fate of a single rescued dolphin may capture public attention through the media, there is no consistent discussion about millions of species ‘harvested’ for consumption, or used for medical experiments.
However, global social altruism is new. Historically and cross-culturally, we can find many examples (some from Western societies as recent as a few decades ago) of how at least some human lives were seen as less important or worth sacrificing. Many indigenous societies’ practices, ranging from human sacrifice to infant infanticide to control population have now been declared illegal. Reification of all human life is part and parcel of contemporary development politics, findings its echo’s in Western philosophical and religious traditions of enlightenment and individualism, which enshrine anthropocentrism. Thus, the overwhelming ethical concern for all humans propagated as the most common-sense moral basis of post-industrial societies seems unprecedented in human history. Related to this unprecedented focus on value of human life including the lives of unborn children – is the increased concern with resources rather than sentient beings.
However, global social altruism is new. Historically and cross-culturally, we can find many examples (some from Western societies as recent as a few decades ago) of how at least some human lives were seen as less important or worth sacrificing. Many indigenous societies’ practices, ranging from human sacrifice to infant infanticide to control population have now been declared illegal. Reification of all human life is part and parcel of contemporary development politics, findings its echo’s in Western philosophical and religious traditions of enlightenment and individualism, which enshrine anthropocentrism. Thus, the overwhelming ethical concern for all humans propagated as the most common-sense moral basis of post-industrial societies seems unprecedented in human history. Related to this unprecedented focus on value of human life including the lives of unborn children – is the increased concern with resources rather than sentient beings.This wide-spread concern about the health, welfare, human rights, etc. of seven billion humans seems to grow in reverse proportion to the increasing disregard for billions of plant and animals species needed daily to satisfy human needs. Many social scientists, seemed to have accepted as 'noble' human rights, indigenous rights, fighting poverty, and preventing disease.
In this view, things like animal rights are marginal at best, one of many perspectives. The golden toad (now extinct) and the Sumatran tiger (critically endangered) do not benefit from the so-called plurality of perspectives that privileges one species only. For those who are unable to participate in our learned academic discussions, it seems that some animals are much more equal than others.
There has been some progress though.
At the plenary session of the 17th World Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, in Manchester in August 2013, the motion 'Justice for people should come before justice for the environment' was debated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldnYTYMx-k).
Veronica Strang has pointed out that if ecological justice is to be recognized, both nature and the people will benefit as humans and environment are intimately interconnected:
In a world where the most powerful groups live in wholly unsustainable affluence, it is very difficult to suggest that anyone should be prevented from enjoying the immediate material benefits that these practices allow... However, there remains a thorny question as to whether anyone, advantaged or disadvantaged, has the right to prioritise their own interests to the extent that those of the non-human are deemed expendable. Discourses on justice for people often imply that the most disadvantaged groups should have special rights to redress long-term imbalances... However, if the result is only a short-term gain at the long-term expense of the non-human, this is in itself not a sustainable process for maintaining either social or environmental equity.
In a world where the most powerful groups live in wholly unsustainable affluence, it is very difficult to suggest that anyone should be prevented from enjoying the immediate material benefits that these practices allow... However, there remains a thorny question as to whether anyone, advantaged or disadvantaged, has the right to prioritise their own interests to the extent that those of the non-human are deemed expendable. Discourses on justice for people often imply that the most disadvantaged groups should have special rights to redress long-term imbalances... However, if the result is only a short-term gain at the long-term expense of the non-human, this is in itself not a sustainable process for maintaining either social or environmental equity.Considering the fact that continuous advocacy and representation is needed to represent non-humans (who will never speak for themselves), we need to push ecological justice debate beyond academic compounds. This might require much more ‘affirmative action’ biospheric altruism. As a prominent anthropologist Eugene Anderson has remarked: ‘Today, with the world ecosystem crashing around us, we are going to have to take stands’. This implies the need to develop a post-racial, post-gender, post-class, undifferentiated humanity so we can develop responsibility for other species. If social altruism can be learned, this has significant implications for the role of education in fostering biospheric egalitarianism.
Images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/luxtenebra/2346884440/in/photostream/