2 Philosophy and Man's Responsibility for Nature
13
ever, we live in the present. What could organize our actions in such a way that they are
compatible with the long-run view, given this may restrict our present interests?
The important motivation is the following: it should be everybody's first interest to
ensure that his or her action is not self-contradictory. Especially in the culture of Enlightenment the condition for actions as a free man is to maintain our autonomy. This
is necessary if we are convinced that we are free, sovereign and responsible beings.
To act really autonomously we have to inform ourselves as far as possible about the
consequences of our actions. Only by doing so, will they remain free and autonomous.
However, then we must base our consideration on the actual knowledge of consequences.
People can only act responsibly if they ensure that they have this knowledge and then
decide in the perspective of the long-run.
We can see that many actual projects can no longer be regarded as responsible. The
idea of sustainabilitywould not only be important for our way of planning and constructing, but also change the whole of our culture: our relationship to nature would no longer
be orientated only towards Bacon's principle but also towards Leonardo's principle.
2.4
Nature Politics
However, what would follow from this paradigm shift? The decisions to modify nature
have a high level of complexity: it is not enough to look at the interests of everyone
involved in the project. It is also necessary 1) to take into account expanded horizons in
space and time and 2) to respect the value of nature. Large-scale productions are characterized by effects in a large spatial and temporal zones: a nuclear power station, for
example, supplies a large region with energy. However, in the case of an accident the
whole of mankind is endangered, because the clean-up of radiation is a problem for
many generations. Another example is the oil exploitation in the North Sea: on one side
we need the energy supply, and on the other side we clearly see the jeopardizing of
nature. So what is the criterion for the decision?
First you have to distinguish two kinds of interests: those of the present generation
and those of the future generations. The interests of today are an example for classical
political conflict. Politics has to find methods to reach a consensus. It is the difficulty of
such a consensus that the typical case for solving the conflict, the compromise, does not
work. What could the compromise achieve if one side wants to construct the power
station and the other side wants to prevent it? For the environmentalists a compromise
is unacceptable. Their aim is to prevent the construction and neither a reduction nor a
postponement can be satisfactory. This, however, is the only way for the industry to
accommodate the environmentalists if it plans to carry out the project. Obviously there
is no chance of a political conflict solution between both actors. Thus, the conflict will
be solved with power. So what would be a political solution?
To achieve a political solution we would have to widen the circle of the participants
beyond the directly affected people. It only becomes a political issue if it is put in the
context of the circumstances. In this way we have to organize a forum to discuss society's aims and values. In such a discussion the material as well as the immaterial wishes
should be reviewed. This would give us the chance to explain our conceptions of nature
and to demand respect for nature. Communication of our aims and wishes would be
helpful to determine the idea of a good life. In spite of individual differences, a consen-
13
ever, we live in the present. What could organize our actions in such a way that they are
compatible with the long-run view, given this may restrict our present interests?
The important motivation is the following: it should be everybody's first interest to
ensure that his or her action is not self-contradictory. Especially in the culture of Enlightenment the condition for actions as a free man is to maintain our autonomy. This
is necessary if we are convinced that we are free, sovereign and responsible beings.
To act really autonomously we have to inform ourselves as far as possible about the
consequences of our actions. Only by doing so, will they remain free and autonomous.
However, then we must base our consideration on the actual knowledge of consequences.
People can only act responsibly if they ensure that they have this knowledge and then
decide in the perspective of the long-run.
We can see that many actual projects can no longer be regarded as responsible. The
idea of sustainabilitywould not only be important for our way of planning and constructing, but also change the whole of our culture: our relationship to nature would no longer
be orientated only towards Bacon's principle but also towards Leonardo's principle.
2.4
Nature Politics
However, what would follow from this paradigm shift? The decisions to modify nature
have a high level of complexity: it is not enough to look at the interests of everyone
involved in the project. It is also necessary 1) to take into account expanded horizons in
space and time and 2) to respect the value of nature. Large-scale productions are characterized by effects in a large spatial and temporal zones: a nuclear power station, for
example, supplies a large region with energy. However, in the case of an accident the
whole of mankind is endangered, because the clean-up of radiation is a problem for
many generations. Another example is the oil exploitation in the North Sea: on one side
we need the energy supply, and on the other side we clearly see the jeopardizing of
nature. So what is the criterion for the decision?
First you have to distinguish two kinds of interests: those of the present generation
and those of the future generations. The interests of today are an example for classical
political conflict. Politics has to find methods to reach a consensus. It is the difficulty of
such a consensus that the typical case for solving the conflict, the compromise, does not
work. What could the compromise achieve if one side wants to construct the power
station and the other side wants to prevent it? For the environmentalists a compromise
is unacceptable. Their aim is to prevent the construction and neither a reduction nor a
postponement can be satisfactory. This, however, is the only way for the industry to
accommodate the environmentalists if it plans to carry out the project. Obviously there
is no chance of a political conflict solution between both actors. Thus, the conflict will
be solved with power. So what would be a political solution?
To achieve a political solution we would have to widen the circle of the participants
beyond the directly affected people. It only becomes a political issue if it is put in the
context of the circumstances. In this way we have to organize a forum to discuss society's aims and values. In such a discussion the material as well as the immaterial wishes
should be reviewed. This would give us the chance to explain our conceptions of nature
and to demand respect for nature. Communication of our aims and wishes would be
helpful to determine the idea of a good life. In spite of individual differences, a consen-