3 ms·

> Good question. Someone else pointed out that _all_ societies have benefited from destroying the environment. I get the feeling they were pointing this out to

> Good question. Someone else pointed out that _all_ societies have benefited from destroying the environment. I get the feeling they were pointing this out to argue that "we" (modern day Americans) don't really need to feel responsible. "Everybody does it, so it must be okay." Not quite. What I was getting at is this argument is usually presented in the context of blaming the West generally or the United States specifically for various atrocities, and gently eliding how the societies which were aggressed upon were usually no different from a morality standpoint: it was simply a matter of who got to who first with a bigger stick in their hand. Not "everybody does it, so it must be okay," just "everybody does it, so casting blame on a specific group is, paradoxically, unfair." For that reason, our responsibility to properly safeguard the environment and to ensure the rights of all people cannot be dependent on one nation or culture atoning for some crime their ancestors allegedly committed in the past. That just builds a never-ending tower of recrimination and anger. It has to be simply our obligation as human beings to each other, right now, today.

hsitz 11y ago
I'm certainly not singling out U.S., or Europe as "culpable offenders". The U.S. is my society, so I know it better and I feel its societal obligations more strongly. As you point out, the Western countries were simply the ones that got there first. And they are also the first to be figuring out how to fix the problems they've caused. Doesn't make them morally better or worse than countries that for historical reasons (smaller economies and lack of technology) have caused less environmental damage. Also, given that you seem to already agree we have the obligation, your insistence on dis-acknowledging our cultural past as a source of the obligation seems odd. Nobody said the obligation had only a single source. The only reason to get angry, so far as I can see, is if a person thinks current steps are perhaps nice to do, but not obligatory. I fail to see how a "never-ending tower of recrimination and anger" can arise from someone simply giving an additional reason that supports the decision we've already made (that we have an obligation).
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > your insistence on dis-acknowledging our cultural past as a source of the obligation seems odd. Well, look at it this way. If someone had killed my father, I wouldn't be satisfied with them saying "here, I'll pay for your college education and we'll call it even"; I'd want them in the electric chair. Similarly, a focus on alleged crimes of past cultures leads inevitably to angry demands for retribution for said crimes, followed by a lot of people replying -- with absolute justification! -- that they weren't responsible for these past crimes, or maybe the other guys were just as bad. Next thing you know everyone's screaming at each other and the formerly universal values have been turned into a political football. If you've got a concept that should be apolitical and universal, the last thing you want to do is prominently attach it to one side of a bitter cultural war.

hsitz 11y ago

I'm certainly not singling out U.S., or Europe as "culpable offenders". The U.S. is my society, so I know it better and I feel its societal obligations more strongly. As you point out, the Western countries were simply the ones that got there first. And they are also the first to be figuring out how to fix the problems they've caused. Doesn't make them morally better or worse than countries that for historical reasons (smaller economies and lack of technology) have caused less environmental damage. Also, given that you seem to already agree we have the obligation, your insistence on dis-acknowledging our cultural past as a source of the obligation seems odd. Nobody said the obligation had only a single source. The only reason to get angry, so far as I can see, is if a person thinks current steps are perhaps nice to do, but not obligatory. I fail to see how a "never-ending tower of recrimination and anger" can arise from someone simply giving an additional reason that supports the decision we've already made (that we have an obligation).

13thLetter 11y ago
> your insistence on dis-acknowledging our cultural past as a source of the obligation seems odd. Well, look at it this way. If someone had killed my father, I wouldn't be satisfied with them saying "here, I'll pay for your college education and we'll call it even"; I'd want them in the electric chair. Similarly, a focus on alleged crimes of past cultures leads inevitably to angry demands for retribution for said crimes, followed by a lot of people replying -- with absolute justification! -- that they weren't responsible for these past crimes, or maybe the other guys were just as bad. Next thing you know everyone's screaming at each other and the formerly universal values have been turned into a political football. If you've got a concept that should be apolitical and universal, the last thing you want to do is prominently attach it to one side of a bitter cultural war.