112
During his tenure at Princeton University, Albert Einstein wrote these words of
comfort to a friend who was grieving the loss of his daughter. Although a simple
note to a friend, it gives us much insight into Einstein’s life philosophy: the interconnectedness of life; the artificial and partisan limitations we place on ourselves in
the community of life; and a way out of the darkness—out of the self-inflicted
harm—by expanding our circles of care.
Einstein was a well-known internationalist and pacifist and was ardently opposed
to racism (or human partisanship), nationalism (or state partisanship), and militarism (or state protection or state harm) (Sullivan 1972; Ghodsee 2015). It was the
rise of Hitler, however, and his policies and philosophies of kriegmenschen (war
people) and schwertglauben (sword believers), that he came to believe that pacifism
was not absolute, and that those seeking peace cannot close their eyes to reality
(Ghodsee 2015). He understood that racism and nationalism can destroy life on
earth and can only be prevented if world leaders (or those with power) set aside
conflicts, and “consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which
has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire” (The
Russell-Einstein Manifesto 1955). In one of his final acts, and alongside 10 other
scientists calling for the end of nuclear proliferation and war, he wrote, “The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty… Remember
your humanity, and forget the rest.” (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto 1955).
This chapter will explore the interconnectedness of life (humans and nature,
humans within nature, and humanity as part of nature), the threats to that interconnectedness (i.e. nationalism), and the responsibility of those in power (here, nationstates) for harms against humanity. It will do this through an ethical and legal lens,
understanding that in both ethics and justice, engagement and discourse is key to
evolution and enlightenment, democracy and diplomacy, as opposed to absolute
maxims forced upon our diverse cultures and communities of life. After all, you do
not need to know perfect justice to know injustice; and you do not need to know
what perfect ethics is, to advance ethical action (Sen 2009).
This chapter will open with an exploration of ethical engagement, and how it can
be used as a practical tool to address the greatest harms we face. What methodology
can be used to highlight ethical principles in action? What process can be used to
highlight the underlying values that guide all decisions? It will use human rights as
a focal point for its analysis of state global responsibility, for if our human constructs (or governance systems)—at their most basic level—do not protect humanity, there is a clear and pervasive need for fundamental change.
This chapter will not provide a detailed overview of law and policy concerning
human rights and the environment, as this has been done extensively elsewhere,
with numerous commitments over numerous decades. What is important to note,
however, that despite these “commitments,” grave human rights violations continue
to occur and are increasing in frequency. We are in the midst of global environmental crises that threaten all humanity: mass-scale biodiversity loss, the acidification
and choking pollution of our oceans, and climate change all lead to human insecurity, food and economic insecurity, and national and global insecurity (Gwiazdon
2018). Why is this happening, despite our calls to halt these harms?
K. A. Gwiazdon
During his tenure at Princeton University, Albert Einstein wrote these words of
comfort to a friend who was grieving the loss of his daughter. Although a simple
note to a friend, it gives us much insight into Einstein’s life philosophy: the interconnectedness of life; the artificial and partisan limitations we place on ourselves in
the community of life; and a way out of the darkness—out of the self-inflicted
harm—by expanding our circles of care.
Einstein was a well-known internationalist and pacifist and was ardently opposed
to racism (or human partisanship), nationalism (or state partisanship), and militarism (or state protection or state harm) (Sullivan 1972; Ghodsee 2015). It was the
rise of Hitler, however, and his policies and philosophies of kriegmenschen (war
people) and schwertglauben (sword believers), that he came to believe that pacifism
was not absolute, and that those seeking peace cannot close their eyes to reality
(Ghodsee 2015). He understood that racism and nationalism can destroy life on
earth and can only be prevented if world leaders (or those with power) set aside
conflicts, and “consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which
has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire” (The
Russell-Einstein Manifesto 1955). In one of his final acts, and alongside 10 other
scientists calling for the end of nuclear proliferation and war, he wrote, “The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty… Remember
your humanity, and forget the rest.” (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto 1955).
This chapter will explore the interconnectedness of life (humans and nature,
humans within nature, and humanity as part of nature), the threats to that interconnectedness (i.e. nationalism), and the responsibility of those in power (here, nationstates) for harms against humanity. It will do this through an ethical and legal lens,
understanding that in both ethics and justice, engagement and discourse is key to
evolution and enlightenment, democracy and diplomacy, as opposed to absolute
maxims forced upon our diverse cultures and communities of life. After all, you do
not need to know perfect justice to know injustice; and you do not need to know
what perfect ethics is, to advance ethical action (Sen 2009).
This chapter will open with an exploration of ethical engagement, and how it can
be used as a practical tool to address the greatest harms we face. What methodology
can be used to highlight ethical principles in action? What process can be used to
highlight the underlying values that guide all decisions? It will use human rights as
a focal point for its analysis of state global responsibility, for if our human constructs (or governance systems)—at their most basic level—do not protect humanity, there is a clear and pervasive need for fundamental change.
This chapter will not provide a detailed overview of law and policy concerning
human rights and the environment, as this has been done extensively elsewhere,
with numerous commitments over numerous decades. What is important to note,
however, that despite these “commitments,” grave human rights violations continue
to occur and are increasing in frequency. We are in the midst of global environmental crises that threaten all humanity: mass-scale biodiversity loss, the acidification
and choking pollution of our oceans, and climate change all lead to human insecurity, food and economic insecurity, and national and global insecurity (Gwiazdon
2018). Why is this happening, despite our calls to halt these harms?
K. A. Gwiazdon