Today I want to talk about morality, how it relates to climate change and what are some of the realities we have to face for a better future.
First of all, to understand how morality and climate change are connected, its important to understand that science shows any, serious person, that the origins of climate change are, in this instance, as a result of human activities. There are those that say it is a controversial area, and that the science is inconclusive. This is a falsehood, there is no real controversy and the science is far from inconclusive on this question. So why is there a resistance to acknowledging what most thinking people already know? Well, I suspect that the strongest voices against the recognition that we are the cause of climate change are those who have strong interests in the commoditisation of the environment, and those who would rather not admit how real the tragedy of the commons really is.
So it is a given that we are the cause of the current predicament that we are in in relation to our rapidly changing climate. To understand the moral case that requires a decent person to take action, its important to understand what morality is and why it exists in the first place. The theory is that moral thinking evolved many thousands of years ago when human beings were becoming increasingly social and cooperative creatures. This, again, developed from the necessity to hunt and gather in groups to ward off starvation and hardship. Cooperation needs individuals to put aside selfish and potentially short-sighted desires in favour of collective actions that will ultimately benefit the entire group who share the same goals. So morality is the result of many complex and often confusing cognitive processes. Its complex because moral judgements can come out of rational reflection and careful consideration and it can also be a purely emotional and based on intuition. We can often see this distinction when quizzing people about moral questions, and persisting past initial responses to arrive at dead ends like “its just wrong, ok?”
This a failure to find a rational explanation to a problem and resigning oneself to judge purely based on how we feel about it.
I suppose from this perspective, it is easy to see why the opposition to the rights of homosexual couples to get married is morally bankrupt. There is no rational reason behind its opposition, it is simply unpalatable to a large number of bigoted voters.
But I digress.
So we are capable of both rational and intuitive moral reasoning, but as you may expect, the former is considerably more time consuming and taxing than the latter. But of course, as I have discussed before, humans always prefer quick and easy over the long and hard - phrasing. The quick and easy approach is good for everyday questions that we face about right and wrong. Do I tell the cashier that he gave me change for a twenty when I paid with a ten dollar note? Do own up to the broken vase or do I let the dog take the fall for it? However, this approach to moral thinking is not ideal when we are considering situations that have implications for millions of people in the present and the unfortunate ones that are yet to be born to a future that we are creating. The problem is that our empathy is primarily geared towards dealing with one or two people at a time. This way we can relate, we can put ourselves in the shoes of others. But when there are many, our ability to relate diminishes considerably. This manner of thinking can be exemplified in the famous words of Joseph Stalin: “A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.”
A recent example was the widely publicised death of the 3 year old Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi. It was only after this horrible tragedy was shown to us so clearly that a humanitarian and political mandate to remedy this situation was actioned. Its not like this type of thing had not happened before. Its not like children have not died in similar situations. But talking about thousands is not the same as talking about one.
So back to the main topic at hand. Working together as humans to fix the deteriorating environment for the benefit of the millions that its devastation affects in countries not as privileged as our own and for the future millions that will come into this world, seems like an insurmountable task.
First we need to accept that we are all in this together and that the selfish wants of certain countries are shortsighted and the negatives will eventually catch up with us. Second, there is a school of thought that suggests that shaming people towards a broad moral shift is potentially a viable option that may get results. An example of this was the abolition of the slave trade in England. The reality is that economic factors motivated the maintenance and expansion of slavery (cheap labour), just like economic factors are typically the motivators for the destruction of our planet. The abolition of the slave trade came about in England despite the economic benefits through the activism of numerous concerned groups who did much to raise awareness about the human cost of slavery. It was this political and moral pressure that ultimately led to the outlawing of slavery. Perhaps this is the method that needs to be employed against the big polluters.
The being said, the situation is not that simple. The people that work within these faceless corporations are on the whole intelligent and conscientious people - I know some them. They are people who want to see a sustainable way to grow towards a future that safeguards the wellbeing of the many. But corporations have a moral and ethical responsibility to make money for their shareholders while balancing the needs of the wider community. Shareholders who indirectly demand year-on-year growth and the promise of future earnings. This makes for a very tricky balancing act and one with few equilibrium points.
A real change will come both from the efforts of the populous and from the commitment of the leaders in these private corporations that have the power to influence public agendas. It is a moral question. Economic levers will not work on their own. By increasing regulation and taxing carbon, we are only going to hear noises about how we are making this country an unfriendly place for investors, or when push comes to shove, those who have the resources to pay the price for destroying the environment, will pay and continue on until the cost-benefit is no longer in their favour.
But the leaders of these organisations are not our enemies. We are allies that need a medium in which to cooperate effectively.
Its not hard to see that the protection of our environment is in all our interests. We are all genuinely in this together. The way to get us to a place where we work as a whole, is to personalise the plight of those affected. To make them people and not numbers. On top of that, we need to ensure that this moral journey is one that we are all accountable for by understanding that each and everyone of us is responsible for the actions we take to prevent further destruction of our commons.
Thank you very much for reading, I will catch you again soon.
-Rod Peredo - SOCM Services
Watch the video to this post at: https://youtu.be/_AenHPY_de4
