Advertisement

Should Future Generations be Content with Plastic Trees and Singing Electronic Birds?

  • Danielle ZwarthoedEmail author
Articles

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to determine whether the present generation should preserve non-human living things (plants, animals and other organisms) for future generations, even if (i) in the future all the contributions these organisms currently make to human survival in decent conditions were performed by adequate technology and (ii) future people's preferences were satisfied by this state of affairs. The paper argues it would be wrong to leave a world without non-human living plants, animals and other organisms to future generations, because such a world would fail to secure one of the conditions of future people’s autonomy, that is, availability of adequate options. Building upon Joseph Raz’s account of autonomy, the paper shows that the presence of non-human living organisms is part of an adequate range of options insofar as, to be adequate, options must meet a test of variety. According to Raz, options pass this test if they enable human agents to exercise a set of physical, affective, imaginative and cognitive capacities humans normally have an innate drive to exercise. The paper discusses empirical findings as well as psychological theories that provide support to the hypothesis that interactions with non-human living organisms enable human beings to develop and exercise these capacities by shaping these capacities in a special way, different from the way interactions with other environments do.

Keywords

Intergenerational justice Open options Environmental preservation Joseph Raz Autonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Versions of this paper have been presented at the Eighth European Congress of Analytical Philosophy (Bucharest), at the Philosophy, Law and Environmental Crisis Conference (Lausanne), at the Louvain-Aarhus Workshop on the Limits of Justice (Aarhus) and at the CELPA Seminar (Warwick). I thank all the participants for their comments. My special thanks to Axel Gosseries for his support and his insightful suggestions. I am grateful to David Axelsen, Jens Thaysen and an anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on earlier drafts. All the remaining errors are my own. The work reported on in this publication has been made possible thanks to a postdoctoral grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation, another from the Centre de Recherche en Ethique (Montreal), and has benefited from participation in the research networking programme Rights to a Green Future, which is financed by the European Science Foundation.

References

  1. Barry, B. (1997). Sustainability and intergenerational justice. Theoria, 44(89), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, B. (1999). Sustainability and intergenerational Justice. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 93–117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown Weiss, E. (1992). In fairness to future generations and sustainable development. American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 8, 19.Google Scholar
  4. Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dworkin, G. (1982). Is more choice better than less? Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7(1), 47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1982.tb00083.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gosseries, A. (1998). L’éthique Environnementale Aujourd’hui. Revue Philosophique De Louvain, 96(3), 395–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gosseries, A. (2001). What do we owe the next generation(s). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 35, 293.Google Scholar
  8. Gosseries, A. (2004). Penser la justice entre les générations: de l’affaire Perruche à la réforme des retraites. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  9. Gosseries, A. (2008). Theories of intergenerational justice: A synopsis. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, 1, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3–26. doi: 10.1177/0013916591231001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartig, T., van den Berg, A. E., Hagerhall, C. M., Tomalak, M., Bauer, N., Hansmann, R., et al. (2011). Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and cultural processes. In K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de Vries, K. Seeland, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Forests, trees and human health (pp. 127–168). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 165–170. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1997.0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, E. (1997). Nature as subject: Human obligation and natural community. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  17. Knopf, R. (1987). Human behavior, cognition and affect in the natural environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 783–825). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Krieger, M. H. (1973). What’s wrong with plastic trees? Science, 179(4072), 446–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, L. (2008). Intergenerational justice. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/justice-intergenerational.
  20. Newman, R. S. (1980). Alleviating learned helplessness in a wilderness setting: An application of attribution theory to outward bound achievement motivation (pp. 312–345). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-8997-3_14.Google Scholar
  21. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Page, E. A. (2007). Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469. doi: 10.1080/09644010701251698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sagoff, M. (1974). On preserving the natural environment. The Yale Law Journal, 84(2), 205–267. doi: 10.2307/795401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen, A. (2004). Rationality and freedom. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Solow, R. M. (1993). Sustainability: An economist's perspective. In R. Dorfman & N. S. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics of the environment: Selected readings (pp. 179–187). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(1), 77–85. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes. In C. C. Marcus & M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (pp. 27–86). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. UN Foundation (2005). The millennium ecosystem assessment. http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx.
  31. Voget-Kleschin, L. (2014). Reasoning claims for more sustainable food consumption: A capabilities perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(3), 455–477. doi: 10.1007/s10806-014-9503-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Watene, K. (2013). Nussbaum’s capability approach and future generations. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 21–39. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2012.747488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Recherche en EthiqueUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations