Environmental Holism and Nanotechnology
The entering wedge of the ethics of nanotechnology—as with any emerging technology—might be a deceptively easy question: What should we protect? From there the matter becomes difficult. Science must tell us what the technology threatens, and how to measure the extent to which the threat is realized. Most difficult, though, is deciding what is worth protecting, and why. The answer to this latter question requires a theory of value, and most ethicists start with an anthropocentric one.2 According to most ethicists, we should protect some combination of human rights, preferences, health, future generations, and so on, because these things are morally valuable. Current research into environment, health, and safety (EHS) issues in nanotechnology is mostly anthropocentric,3 and might be better construed as research into threats to human health and safety, and to the environment insofar as it affects humans.
I want to investigate the answer to the “deceptively easy” question from a different, non-anthropocentric starting point: environmental holism. In this essay I will explain a version of environmental holism and sketch what should be protected from any harms that might be caused by nanotechnology applications on this view. I will not argue that this kind of non-anthropocentric view is superior to all anthropocentric ethics, for surely this conclusion is beyond the scope of an essay. I will argue, however, that various human interests are protected (though incidentally) by a preferred interpretation of environmental holism, one inspired by the writings of Aldo Leopold.
KeywordsCritical Zone Land Community Human Interest Gold Cyanide Naturalistic Principle
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bentham, J. 2005. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press .Google Scholar
- Boyer, P. S. 1994. By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press .Google Scholar
- Dworkin, R. 1984. Rights as Trumps. In Theories of Rights, ed. J. Waldron, 153–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Leopold, A. 1987. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press .Google Scholar
- May, L. (Robert). 2005. Threats to Tomorrow's World. President's Anniversary Address. The Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. 1989. On Liberty. In On Liberty and Other Essays, ed. S. Collini, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .Google Scholar
- National Research Council. 2001. Basic Research Opportunities in Earth Science Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Oberdörster, E. 2004. Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environmental Health Perspectives 112.10: 1058.Google Scholar
- Singer, P. 1990. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House .Google Scholar
- Stone, V et al. 2006. Suggested strategies for the ecotoxicology testing of nanoparticles. In life- cycle analysis tools for “green” materials and process selection. Materials Research Society Proceedings 895: 173–186.Google Scholar
- Tsuji, J. S et al. 2006. Risk assessment of nanoparticles. Toxicological Sciences 89.1: 42–50.Google Scholar