It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of
sustainability with those of social morality or societal
ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely
coercive system could be based on the necessity of
sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it
works.
It is also false and unfair to sustainability as a vehicle
to further a moral agenda. This puts opponents in the
position of advocating starvation, by creating a false
connection between the technical/social issue of sustainable
possibility and a set of moral tenants.
This does not mean that we can not examine outlooks, ideas
and ethical constructs for their impact on the environment
and sustainability. For example it is easy to see how the
notion that humans have dominion over the earth, which is
an adversary to be conquered, could lead to the complete
and devastating deforestation of an area. However, to then
attempt to *derive* an ethical system from the natural system
and its preservation, is fallacious. It would be quite possible
to determine and maintain a low/sustainable forest yield,
with a high level of diversity, using slave labor for the
survey and public executions for those who over harvest.
The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be
subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and
other concerns confined to the appropriate context.
Jonathan Haskett
jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov