Introduction And Background

Do we need a new ethics of nature?  Paul Collier – Professor of Economics at Oxford, former head of Development Research at the World Bank, and author of the Plundered Planet – thinks so.

Prof. Collier explains his proposed new ethics of environmentalism – based on the future’s right to the “value” of natural assets –  in his Financial Times op-ed titled “Towards a new ethics of nature.”  Among other things, Collier uses Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” to support his new ethics of nature. He is a specialist in the political, economical and developmental predicaments of poor countries. His views have stirred much discussion in the environmental community.

Why do we need a new ethics of environmentalism?  Prof. Collier is critical of the what he calls “romantic environmentalism”, with its emphasis on “preservation” – which he claims condemns poor societies to poverty. He is also critical of “mainstream economics”, with its emphasis on a utilitarian calculus in which “remote” future generations count as much as the current generation in the use of natural assets.  This utilitarian calculus, he claims, doesn’t accurately model human behavior – and, thus, explains why we have a  hard time convincing today’s generation to sacrifice for the future.

His new rights-based ethics in the “value” of natural assets allows for the “use” of natural assets on behalf of future generations, when appropriate – and, alternatively, the “preservation" of natural assets for future generations, when appropriate. 

Highlights of his op-ed are below, followed by discussion questions  Whether you agree with Prof. Collier or not, his viewpoint raises many thoughtful questions, some of which are listed below….. To read more of Prof. Collier’s Financial Times op-ed – you can access the article by: (1) using Google to search on the words “towards a new ethics of nature” (the article title), and (2) clicking on the search result with the URL beginning “FT.com” (the Financial Times internet domain name), generally the first Google search result.  

*  The Present Expropriates What Should Belong To the Future

“Natural assets are valuable and they are vulnerable. The current frontier for their exploitation is the quarter of the earth’s land surface home to the bottom billion: hence the new scramble for Africa. This is the last technically accessible region to be explored, but much of it is weakly governed.…. Ungoverned natural assets are subject to plunder: the few expropriate what should belong to the many, and the present expropriates what should belong to the future….. Plunder can only be avoided by robust collective action.”

*  Preventing Plunder In The Societies Of The Bottom Billion

“The struggle to prevent the plunder of nature will be fought mainly in the societies of the bottom billion, which control the current frontier, and in the international conference halls that must regulate the future frontier. Neither is a promising venue. Rallying around a simple common ethics of nature would improve the chances.”

*  Romantic Environmentalists – Preservation For Future Generations

“Unfortunately, nature has been moralised before it has been analysed. In popular debate the high moral ground has been seized by romantic environmentalists who define our ethical obligation as preservation. Even in the west this can never be more than a minority view.”

*  Economic Utilitarians – Future Generations Count As Much As We Do

“Meanwhile, in the more rarefied technocratic debate, the high ground has been occupied by economic models. The models judge choices about the future by an austere utilitarianism in which future people, however remote, count for just as much as we do….. If transferring a dollar from you to someone in the 23rd century helps them more than it hurts you, then away it should go irrespective of the fact that you worked for it and they did not. While this may describe the ethics of an anthill, it bears little resemblance to any human society.”

*  Both Views Demand We Be Saints 

“Both romantics and [economic utilitarian] modellers demand that we be saints. Condemned to fall short of these standards, people retreat into a shrug: God make me good, but not yet.”

*  We Are Custodians Of “Value” In the Natural Assets

 “The ethical test is the thought experiment of putting ourselves in the position of some future generation. In an impoverished society, the future will prefer to inherit schools and cities rather than to remain in impoverished purity [of the natural asset]. This simple ethical test of whether we are infringing the rights of the future is much closer to how we see our obligations than either utilitarianism or romantic environmentalism. Respecting the rights of the future [in the value of he natural asset] is manifestly more compelling than basing decisions on the esoteric sanctity of the infinite-horizon utilitarian calculus.”

*  Simple Ethics Of Nature: To Pass On The “Value” Of Natural Assets

“Our obligation to the future is not to preserve purity [of the natural asset] but to pass on equivalent value for the natural assets we deplete. If, by converting natural assets into more productive assets, a poor society can escape poverty, then it should do so.”

*  The Parable Of Talents – About Being “Custodians” Of Nature

“[T]he idea that natural assets oblige us to be custodians of value is common to widely differing cultures. Custody is echoed in the Christian concept of “stewardship” as told in the parable of the talents. The rich man leaves talents with his stewards. On his return, the steward who has merely preserved the talents, wrapping them up and handing them back, is chastised. The ones who are praised are those who have used them fruitfully.”

*  As Custodians – When To “Use” And When To “Preserve” Natural Assets

Under this custodial ethic, “the future may want us to use nature rather than preserve it distinguishes humane environmentalists from romantics: we are the custodians of value, not the curators of artifacts.”

On the other hand, “the same ethical test is likely to yield the opposite result. If we spew out carbon we are obliged not to infringe the rights of the future. We would therefore have to bequeath sufficient man-made assets that it feels fully compensated. But since the future will be awash with man-made assets, the cost of compensation would be exorbitant: better in this case to preserve nature.”

***** Postscript: An Interview With Paul Collier *****

Paul Collier was interviewed in the Ecologist in an article titled:   “Paul Collier: saying 'nature has to be preserved' condemns the poor to poverty” – which further explains, among other, things his views on a new ethic for nature. To read his Ecologist interview – click on the above interview title.

***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion *****

(1) Do you agree that natural assets are valuable and subject to “plunder”?  If so – then how do we decide what is “plunder” and what is a “legitimate use” of a natural asset?

(2) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature is a better approach in dealing with the “plunder” of natural assets residing in the home of the “bottom billion” – why or why not?   

(3) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature is merely “semantics” or is a “substantive” contribution to in the environmental debate? 

(4) Do you think the so-called “romantic environmentalists” mistakenly define our ethical obligation to the future as “preservation” – why or why not?  And if so – is there problem with “preserving” natural assets for the future? 

(5) Do you agree that “preserving” natural assets for the future “can never be more than a minority view” – why or why not?

(6) Do you think that economic utilitarians do not take into account the behavior of current generations who may not want to share or sacrifice for remote future generations – why or why not?  Give examples or counter examples.

(7)  Do you think the problem with our current environmental ethics is that it demands that we be “saints” – why or why not?  Why is this a problem in getting things done – if at all?

(8) Is Collier’s ethical test of “putting ourselves in the position of some future generation” equivalent to applying the Golden Rule to future generations – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mathew 7:12)?

(9) Do you agree with Collier that “[o]ur obligation to the future is not to preserve purity [of natural assets] but to pass on equivalent value for the natural assets we deplete” – why or why not? 

(10) Who (what organization?) and how (what decision rules?) should we use to decide whether it is better to “use” or “preserve” natural assets for the future. ….. What do you think may be the practical and political obstacles to the  “who” and “how” of implementing Collier’s new ethics of nature?   Give examples or counter examples to support your view?

(11) Do you think the “Parable of the Talents” (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28) supports Collier’s new ethics of nature – why or why not? …. To what extent is “custodianship” a central theme in the parable and in Collier’s new ethics of nature?

(12) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature helps to more properly frame the environmental debate regarding the use of the natural assets residing in the home of the “bottom billion”  – why or why not? 

(13) How does the Biblical notion of our obligation to “care for God’s creation” (Genesis 2:15) fit in with Collier’s new ethics of nature?  

       ***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall *****

(a) “Global Warming: A Dialogue With Uncommitted Christians,” (by Peter Wong) presents a Socratic-like dialogue supporting actions to mitigate global warming, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue.

(b) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.