We look at issues on a single thread of direct cause and effect. We fail to examine the impact of our actions in their entirety. For example we say, wow, we need more heat or we need more energy so let’s cut down more forests and burn more trees because it allows us to then go in and extract more fossil fuels. If you examine these actions through the lens of “this is what is good for us now” then it is okay because there is an immediate benefit, but if you look at it from a wider context of how these actions impact us as a whole or over time, you start to see things from a different perspective. So a deontological perspective comes from a very different place. It is a fundamental turning around from where we are now and saying, okay, let’s start from a completely different premise here. It’s saying let’s start from the first duty that we have, which is to do no harm. Where does that take us then? If it’s really “do no harm,” then we have to start from the premise of saying we criminalize mass damage and destruction to the earth. We draw a line in the sand, and say we’re not going to do that anymore. You’re alluding to the idea of system’s theory. In terms of industry best practices and scales of economies being completely transformed, the law of ecocide marks a fundamental paradigm shift on par with a post-industrial age. How does this idea work within the framework of nature and law?
Posted on: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:11:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015