Individual Freedom and the Environment
I guess I should start by saying that I define myself as a "Sustainable Developmentalist" rather than an "Environmentalist" per se. I take this to mean that: development, industry, productivity should be encouraged but these forces must be prevented from destroying things that can not be replaced and from acting in a way that will inevitably lead to human-destruction in the long-run. People should be encouraged to create things, and improve the world, but this should be done in a way that can be continued indefinitely. In addition there are some things which can't belong to a single person, company or nation and those things must be protected (the air is one obvious example).
Now I don't know if you imagine these restrictions as being reasonable, or as already too much of an infringement on individual freedom, but I have to believe that you agree there is a certain amount of regulation which is necessary. As the most extreme and obvious example, a factory should not be allowed to pollute the air so much as to kill people in a neighboring town. Correct?
This idea seems simple enough, and in reality it may be. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Unfortunately when you get to the practicalities of implimenting environmental legislatoin the lines are not always clear. I am finding that environmentalism deals very closely with regulating the actions of other people, and sometimes it is hard to know what is an acceptable regulation and what is not. Every day I am presented with new cases where this line is blurred, and I imagine other's where I wouldn't know how to decide.
One very specific example is International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). This is an agreement which gives plant breeders property rights over the plants and seeds that they develop or discover. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea, but the specifics tend to be tricky. When exactly can someone say they "developed" a plant. In this convention all someone has to do is be the first to try to patent and sell it. So, essentially I could go into a country and, as long as no one else has come before me, start claiming to own the rights to any plants that weren't already "common knowledge". I don't have to change the seeds or really do anything, just have the idea to sell them, and have the resources to patent them. So, should someone be able to claim to own something they did nothing to create? And if they can, how long does this ownership last? Do they own that plant type and any plant type derived from it? Can they dictate who can grow those plants and what they do with them? Maybe, yes. They might have right to own all of these things. But I don't know if I like the idea of world where "coca-cola" owns the rights to every tree in a park. (And on a tangent: maybe if "Pfizer Pharmaceuticals" owned the rights to every tree, plant and animal in the Amazon they would protect some little bits, but the rest would still be laid to waste. So as far as bio-diversity goes property rights are probably not the solution.)
Here's another random example of the blurred line between one person's rights and antother's. While walking down the street today I saw a McDonalds, I think probably the only McDonalds in Geneva. It had a very under-stated sign outside, and none of the big golden arches you see everywhere else in the world. I am sure this is because Switzerland heavily regulates how big and flashy signs can be. As a simplistic example of this general issue, how big of a sign should a restaurant be allowed to have? You might agree that there must be SOME limit, a huge flashing sign for McDonalds with rotating lights and lasers shooting everywhere doesn't sound like my idea of acceptable. But someone else DOES own the restaurant and who am I to say what he can or can not do (even though it does directly affect me). So, if some sort of regulation is necessary whose sensibilities do you use? Mine, when I say I fucking hate McDonald's signs, or the average New Yorker who thinks anything under 35ft tall is ok?
Anyway, I'm not too worried about these dilemmas, but it is important to keep the perspective of all sides in mind. I think my stance on most of issues is clear. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The key is finding where the rights of one begin and the rights of others end. I know there are answers, but it seems that each issue needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
It is unfortunate to think that many of the things I'm fighting for, while protecting the health and rights of one group, might infringe upon the rights of another. But I guess you just have to make a value judgment about which you think is more important. And when you compare the value of one man's profits with the value of indefinite human survival and a sustainable world, I don't think it's too hard to choose.
Now I don't know if you imagine these restrictions as being reasonable, or as already too much of an infringement on individual freedom, but I have to believe that you agree there is a certain amount of regulation which is necessary. As the most extreme and obvious example, a factory should not be allowed to pollute the air so much as to kill people in a neighboring town. Correct?
This idea seems simple enough, and in reality it may be. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Unfortunately when you get to the practicalities of implimenting environmental legislatoin the lines are not always clear. I am finding that environmentalism deals very closely with regulating the actions of other people, and sometimes it is hard to know what is an acceptable regulation and what is not. Every day I am presented with new cases where this line is blurred, and I imagine other's where I wouldn't know how to decide.
One very specific example is International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). This is an agreement which gives plant breeders property rights over the plants and seeds that they develop or discover. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea, but the specifics tend to be tricky. When exactly can someone say they "developed" a plant. In this convention all someone has to do is be the first to try to patent and sell it. So, essentially I could go into a country and, as long as no one else has come before me, start claiming to own the rights to any plants that weren't already "common knowledge". I don't have to change the seeds or really do anything, just have the idea to sell them, and have the resources to patent them. So, should someone be able to claim to own something they did nothing to create? And if they can, how long does this ownership last? Do they own that plant type and any plant type derived from it? Can they dictate who can grow those plants and what they do with them? Maybe, yes. They might have right to own all of these things. But I don't know if I like the idea of world where "coca-cola" owns the rights to every tree in a park. (And on a tangent: maybe if "Pfizer Pharmaceuticals" owned the rights to every tree, plant and animal in the Amazon they would protect some little bits, but the rest would still be laid to waste. So as far as bio-diversity goes property rights are probably not the solution.)
Here's another random example of the blurred line between one person's rights and antother's. While walking down the street today I saw a McDonalds, I think probably the only McDonalds in Geneva. It had a very under-stated sign outside, and none of the big golden arches you see everywhere else in the world. I am sure this is because Switzerland heavily regulates how big and flashy signs can be. As a simplistic example of this general issue, how big of a sign should a restaurant be allowed to have? You might agree that there must be SOME limit, a huge flashing sign for McDonalds with rotating lights and lasers shooting everywhere doesn't sound like my idea of acceptable. But someone else DOES own the restaurant and who am I to say what he can or can not do (even though it does directly affect me). So, if some sort of regulation is necessary whose sensibilities do you use? Mine, when I say I fucking hate McDonald's signs, or the average New Yorker who thinks anything under 35ft tall is ok?
Anyway, I'm not too worried about these dilemmas, but it is important to keep the perspective of all sides in mind. I think my stance on most of issues is clear. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The key is finding where the rights of one begin and the rights of others end. I know there are answers, but it seems that each issue needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
It is unfortunate to think that many of the things I'm fighting for, while protecting the health and rights of one group, might infringe upon the rights of another. But I guess you just have to make a value judgment about which you think is more important. And when you compare the value of one man's profits with the value of indefinite human survival and a sustainable world, I don't think it's too hard to choose.
posted by -E at 5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home