Inicio¿El medio ambiente de quién?EducaciónUniversidad Atlas
No se han encontrado artículos.
¿El medio ambiente de quién?

¿El medio ambiente de quién?

6 minutos
|
June 21, 2010


June 17, 2010 -- I was walking back to the office one day, here in Washington, D.C., when a young woman accosted me on a street corner. “Got a minute for the environment?” she asked, thrusting a leaflet in my direction.

Welcome to Washington, I thought. In New York, where I used to live, people passing bills on the street were usually selling one of two things: men’s suits or sex. But Washington is a political town. Here we sell causes.

I didn’t stop. I didn’t have a minute for her, or for much of anything except getting back to work. Besides, it seemed a little presumptuous of her to claim to represent the environment. And what did she mean by “the environment,” anyway? What does the term refer to? And then it struck me: that is an interesting question.

"Environment" is a political code-word, like “family values,” that signals allegiance to a set of causes.

The street-corner environmentalist expected passers-by to understand what she meant, as do editorialists who speak of “environmental policies,” as do companies that tout their products as “Earth-friendly,” as do “environmentally conscious” consumers who conspicuously drive hybrid cars. No one is puzzled by these references. Everyone seems to understand what the environment is.

Yet “environment” is a highly abstract concept. It refers to the totality of external conditions that an organism of a particular type can interact with and that affect its survival, as opposed to its internal structure and processes. For every species there is a different environment, set by its nature. The environment of a garden flower in Florida is not the same as the environment of a Siberian tiger. “Environment” is a relational concept, like “husband” and “wife.” You can’t be a husband unless someone is your wife, and there can’t be an environment except as the environment of something. There is no such thing as the environment.

So what do people mean by that term? The next time I heard the “Got a minute…” pick-up line, I asked, “Which environment do you mean? Whose environment?” The question seemed to startle the person. “You know, the environment. Like, the Earth.” The Earth? No, that can’t be the referent of “the environment,” not literally. As a the third planet from the sun, the Earth doesn’t need a minute of our help staying in orbit, nor is it in danger from anything short of astrophysical calamity. As the sphere that all living things occupy, the Earth includes human beings and everything they have created, along with all other living things and inanimate matter. Again, that’s clearly not what is meant.

Perhaps the intent is to distinguish what is natural from what is man-made. That’s a rough-and-ready distinction, valid as far as it goes. But the realm of the natural doesn’t really coincide with the range of things people seem to include in “the environment.” On the one hand, environmentally correct organic produce is just as man-made as any other kind. On the other hand, digestion is a natural function and so, therefore, are its waste products and the pollution they cause if left untreated. In fundamental terms, the distinction between natural and man-made flounders on the fact that human beings are part of nature, and that it is our nature as a species to live by production. The artificial is natural to man.

This is obviously not the conception that environmentalists invoke and expect everyone to understand. So, again, what do they mean? What is the referent of “the environment”? The answer is that the term doesn’t have a referent, because it is not intended to do real cognitive work. It is a political code-word, like “family values,” that signals allegiance to a set of causes. These causes relate in diverse ways to our physical environment. Some of the particular causes are reasonable, some are not. But my point is that they are not held together by a coherent ideology, even a false one. They are held together by various unexamined assumptions (e.g., resources are limited, business is rapacious), feelings (fear of exhausting resources, guilt about prosperity), and images (dark satanic smokestacks, the beautiful blue-green planet from space). In this respect, “the environment” is what Ayn Rand called a floating abstraction, which acquires its content through emotions and associations rather than by derivation from reality.

Epistemology is a long-range weapon, of limited use in a street fight.

Many observers have noted that the core themes of environmentalism have striking parallels to religion. The idolization of primitive societies living in balance with nature is a secular version of the Garden of Eden. Guilt about production, prosperity, and resource use are the environmentalist form of  original sin. Like Hebrew prophets, environmentalists warn that the end is near, from global warming or some other apocalypse, unless we change our sinful ways and atone through ritual sacrifices of recycling, meatless Mondays, and abstinence from the demon drug carbon.

We can now see yet another parallel. The religious narrative presumes the existence of God, but theologians have never been able to define or even give definite content to the idea of God. The idea at the very heart of religion is vaguely imagined, imbued with feelings of hope, dread, and awe but incapable of definition except (at best) in negative terms. God is outside nature, outside time, not finite, and above all not man. “The environment” likewise has a floating content of images and feelings, incapable of coherent definition but with a similar negative cast: the environment is that which is not man. It’s the way the world would be if humans weren’t in it.

I don’t expect that this analysis will have much impact in current debates about global warming, “cap and trade,” pesticide use, and the like. Epistemology is a long-range weapon, of limited use in a street fight. But I do not think we will ever succeed in creating a free, rational, and—in the literal sense of the term—a fully humane society until we establish the right conceptual framework in which to think about specific issues.

There is such a thing as the environment of human beings as a species. But this valid concept of environment is poles apart from the one that environmentalists invoke. For one thing, humans do not have a fixed environment set by nature. As a species that lives by production, we constantly transform our environment, investing the stuff of “raw” nature with layer upon layer of man-made things. From cropland that has been tilled for generations, to the animals we breed for food and other uses, to the cities most of us live in, to the communication networks we use every day, we live in surroundings pervasively shaped by human effort. In any environment that humans occupy today, disentangling the man-made from the natural would take the most complex investigation, if indeed it is possible at all.

As social animals, moreover, we produce institutions and networks for trading, exchanging knowledge, and other forms of interaction. So our environment is not solely physical. It includes the economy in which we produce and trade. It includes the culture in which we acquire knowledge and seek rejuvenation in art. It includes the political environment of rights and laws. “For always roaming with a hungry heart,” says the Greek hero Ulysses in Tennyson’s poem,

Much have I seen and known; cities of men

And manners, climates, councils, governments…

Cities of men and manners, councils and governments—all of these are as much a part of the human environment as climate, because all of them affect our survival and, together, form the set of factors we interact with.

This human environment is the one I care about. For this, I do have a minute—and much more.

David Kelley earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University in 1975, and later taught cognitive science and philosophy at Vassar College and Brandeis University. His articles on social issues and public policy have appeared in Harpers, The Sciences, Reason, Harvard Business Review, The Freeman, and elsewhere. His books include Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence; The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand; The Evidence of the Senses, and The Art of Reasoning, one of the most widely used logic textbooks in the country. Kelley is founder and executive director of The Atlas Society.

TNI articles by David Kelley          Atlas Society articles by David Kelley

David Kelley

SOBRE EL AUTOR:

David Kelley

David Kelley es el fundador de The Atlas Society. Filósofo profesional, profesor y autor de best-sellers, ha sido uno de los principales defensores del Objetivismo durante más de 25 años.

Doctor David Kelley
About the author:
Doctor David Kelley

David Kelley gründete 1990 die Atlas Society (TAS) und war bis 2016 als Geschäftsführer tätig. Darüber hinaus war er als Chief Intellectual Officer für die Überwachung der von der Organisation produzierten Inhalte verantwortlich: Artikel, Videos, Vorträge auf Konferenzen usw.. Er zog sich 2018 von TAS zurück, ist weiterhin in TAS-Projekten aktiv und ist weiterhin Mitglied des Kuratoriums.

Kelley ist ein professioneller Philosoph, Lehrer und Autor. Nach seinem Doktortitel in Philosophie an der Princeton University im Jahr 1975 trat er der Philosophischen Abteilung des Vassar College bei, wo er eine Vielzahl von Kursen auf allen Ebenen unterrichtete. Er unterrichtete auch Philosophie an der Brandeis University und hielt häufig Vorlesungen an anderen Universitäten.

Kelleys philosophische Schriften umfassen Originalwerke in Ethik, Erkenntnistheorie und Politik, von denen viele objektivistische Ideen in neuer Tiefe und in neuen Richtungen entwickeln. Er ist der Autor von Der Beweis der Sinne, eine Abhandlung in Erkenntnistheorie; Wahrheit und Toleranz im Objektivismus, zu Themen der objektivistischen Bewegung; Unrobuster Individualismus: Die egoistische Grundlage von Wohlwollen; und Die Kunst des Denkens, ein weit verbreitetes Lehrbuch für einführende Logik, jetzt in der 5. Auflage.

Kelley hat Vorträge gehalten und zu einer Vielzahl politischer und kultureller Themen veröffentlicht. Seine Artikel zu sozialen Fragen und öffentlicher Ordnung erschienen in Harpers, The Sciences, Reason, Harvard Business Review, The Freeman, Aus Prinzip, und anderswo. In den 1980er Jahren schrieb er häufig für Barrons Finanz- und Wirtschaftsmagazin zu Themen wie Egalitarismus, Einwanderung, Mindestlohngesetzen und Sozialversicherung.

Sein Buch Ein Eigenleben: Individuelle Rechte und der Wohlfahrtsstaat ist eine Kritik der moralischen Prämissen des Wohlfahrtsstaates und die Verteidigung privater Alternativen, die individuelle Autonomie, Verantwortung und Würde wahren. Sein Auftritt in John Stossels ABC/TV-Special „Greed“ im Jahr 1998 löste eine landesweite Debatte über die Ethik des Kapitalismus aus.

Als international anerkannter Experte für Objektivismus hielt er zahlreiche Vorträge über Ayn Rand, ihre Ideen und Werke. Er war Berater bei der Verfilmung von Atlas zuckte mit den Achseln, und Herausgeber von Atlas Shrugged: Der Roman, die Filme, die Philosophie.

 

Hauptwerk (ausgewählt):

Konzepte und Naturen: Ein Kommentar zu Die realistische Wende (von Douglas B. Rasmussen und Douglas J. Den Uyl),“ Reason Papers 42, Nr. 1, (Sommer 2021); Diese Rezension eines kürzlich erschienenen Buches beinhaltet einen tiefen Einblick in die Ontologie und Erkenntnistheorie von Konzepten.

Die Grundlagen des Wissens. Sechs Vorlesungen zur objektivistischen Erkenntnistheorie.

Das Primat der Existenz“ und“Die Erkenntnistheorie der Wahrnehmung„, Die Jefferson School, San Diego, Juli 1985

Universalien und Induktion„, zwei Vorträge auf den GKRH-Konferenzen, Dallas und Ann Arbor, März 1989

Skepsis„, Universität York, Toronto, 1987

Die Natur des freien Willens„, zwei Vorträge am Portland Institute, Oktober 1986

Die Partei der Moderne„, Cato Policy Report, Mai/Juni 2003; und Navigator, Nov. 2003; Ein vielzitierter Artikel über die kulturellen Unterschiede zwischen vormodernen, modernen (Aufklärung) und postmodernen Auffassungen.

Ich muss nicht„(IOS-Journal, Band 6, Nummer 1, April 1996) und“Ich kann und ich werde“ (Der neue Individualist, Herbst/Winter 2011); Begleitartikel darüber, wie wir die Kontrolle, die wir über unser Leben als Individuen haben, Wirklichkeit werden lassen.

Umwelt und Energie