Justice, Society and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology

by Nicholas Low, Brendan Gleeson

Justice, Society and Nature examines the moral response which the world must make to the ecological crisis if there is to be real change in the global society and economy to favour ecological integrity. From its base in the idea of the self, through principles of political justice, to the justice of global institutions, the authors trace the layered structure of the philosophy of justice as it applies to environmental and ecological issues. Philosophical ideas are treated in a straightforward and easily understandable way with reference to practical examples.

Moving straight to the heart of pressing international and national concerns, the authors explore the issues of environment and development, fair treatment of humans and non-humans, and the justice of the social and economic systems which affect the health and safety of the peoples of the world. Current grass-roots concerns such as the environmental justice movement in the USA, and the ethics of the international regulation of development are examined in depth.

The authors take debates beyond mere complaint about the injustice of the world economy, and suggest what should now be done to do justice to nature.

273 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 12, 1998

Reviews

[mkmk · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book talks about how to achieve political and ecological justice for human and non-human world on a global scale. It posits that the only system possible for achieving ecological justice is a cosmopolitan democratic global one. This means global institutions udner which, as the authors assure us, there would be space for cultural diversity and autonomy.

some citations:

One can argue over the definition of ‘development’ and ‘sustainable’ but what seems undeniable is the fact that judgements must be made in favour of some forms of development and against others, and further, that those judgements can no longer be left to individualised producers and consumers interacting in markets created and conditioned by national states. (pg 13)

Bauman in Low and Gleeson: Moral responsibility prompts us to care that our children are fed, clad and shod; it cannot offer us much practical advice, however, when faced with a depleted, desiccated and overheated planet which our children and the children of our children will inherit and will have to inhabit in the direct or oblique result of our present collective unconcern. (Bauman, 1993:218). (pg 38)

ABOUT ARGUMENTATIONS: [...] true dialogue requires argument that one positionis better than another. The only reasonable basis for such a claim that one position is better than another would seem to be that one position better expresses the humanness of humans, the transcendent and universal qualities we share between cultures. It will not do to say: ‘Well what you say is right for you, but not for me’. Simply agreeing to differ in this way is merely an avoidance of dialogue. We would be saying in effect: ‘Let us talk about many things but let us avoid talking about what centrally divides us’. In such an artificial and vacuuous interaction no-one learns from anyone and the status quo is forever preserved. (pg 44)

CAPITALISM CREATED NEEDS BY UNNECESSARY PRODUCTION: Capitalism has an almost infinite capacityto develop new objects to possess, and thus to develop consciousness of a certain category of need. But this capacity is limited to objects which can be quantified and purchased: ‘The need to have is that to which all needs are reduced…. It is a need directed towards private property and money in ever increasing quantity’ (Heller, 1974:57). Capitalism is therefore a one-sided mode of production which inhibits the development of a consciousness of those needs which cannot be quantified or marketed. (pg 63)

ABOUT GDP AND GNP: The standards by which economies are evaluated by those who govern them (national governments, the World Bank, the IMF) depend on one type of measure in particular: gross national product or gross domestic product (GNP, GDP, the difference is significant).

--> GNP was never intended as a measure of ‘welfare’ but simply of business activity with a view to determining the national income of a country at war. The wellbeing of a population cannot be and was never intended to be measured by GNP. Moreover GNP was later revised as the primary measure of growth (read ‘economic success’) and replaced by GDP. Whereas GNP is a measure of production that generates money income for a country’s residents, GDP (gross domestic product) measures production that generates income in a nation’s economy ‘whether the resources are owned by that country’s residents or not’ (Waring, 1988:71). Thus income which accrues to non-residents (in the form of profits, interest, etc.) from a given national economy is part of its GDP but not of its GNP. Mining ventures may add to the GDP of a country like Papua New Guinea but may add relatively little to the (unevenly distributed) financial benefit of residents. (pg 74-75)

THEORY OF JUSTICE: What the theory of justice must regulate is the inequalities in life prospects between citizens that arise from social starting positions, natural advantages, and historical contingencies. Even if these inequalities are not in some cases very great, their effect may be great enough so that over time they have significant cumulative consequences. (Rawls in Low and Gleeson, pg 88)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Freedom of speech understood simply as the right to express an opinion ‘into the void’, as it were, trivialises communication. Public dialogue is about the freedom to engage in a meaningful two-way process. (pg 92)

TODAY IS PREVALENT THOUGHT THAT THE MARKET IS A TRUE MEASURE FOR PREFERENCE: Especially prevalent is the welfare—utilitarian assumption that all human preferences for social ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ can be measured in money terms (principally as price signals emerging through exchange mechanisms) and can therefore be equated, substituted, and even traded, for distributional purposes. (pg 116)

--> OFC, THE MARKET ONLY REFLECTS THE LACK OF CHOICE TO LEAD A CERTAIN LIFE-STYLE REMOVED FROM PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND EXCHANGE: The aggregate of individual preferences achievable in a market is thus confused with social and political consensus—the market aggregate expedient with political principle. It seems hardly necessary to point out just how far removed such an assumption is from human reality [...] (pg 118)

The importance of this analysis is that it shows that, rather than being a system tending towards equilibrium, as utilitarian economists generally assume, capitalism depends at core on the maintenance of what complexity theorists term a ‘far-from-equilibrium’ condition or, in Marxist terms, ‘uneven development’ (Anderson et al., 1988; Brian, 1990; Smith, 1994:649–50; Fagan and Webber, 1994). (pg 121)

TWO PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE: 1. The first principle of ecological justice is that every natural entity is entitled to enjoy the fullness of its own form of life. Non-human nature is entitled to moral consideration. [...] 2. The second principle is that all life forms are mutually dependent and dependent on non-life forms. This principle must be considered when any conflict among species occurs. (pg 156)

--> 'moral' rules of thumb: 1. Life has moral precedence over non-life, 2. Individualised life forms have moral precedence over life forms which only exist as communities, 3. Individualised life forms with human consciousness have moral precedence over other life forms. (pg 156-157)

CONCLUSION: [T]he challenge of ecological and environmental justice is nothing less than the transformation of the global institutions of governance, the reinstatement of democracy at a new level, the democratisation of both production and its regulation. (pg 213)