Privileging the Present
Precautionary environmentalism for its own sake is irresponsible: it ignores important ethical, metaphysical, and religious questions. Read More
Many readers no doubt remember fondly Dr. Pangloss, the eternal and foolish optimist of Voltaire’s Candide who concluded that this must be the best of all possible worlds. In general, one’s personal experiences tend to argue that it probably isn’t, at least all of the time and on an individual, rather than collective, basis. So, the Panglossian approach tends to be viewed with amusement and regarded as, at best, superficial. Ironic, then, that a mirror image of this frothy philosophic fantasy has become an implicit ideology of much environmentalism.
In particular, it is seldom recognized how powerful and unquestioned the drive to “privilege the present” is. Consider, for example, what the Kyoto process is about — stabilizing the climate. If successful, Kyoto removes an important source of environmental variability that has encouraged the evolution of life on this planet. It dramatically affects future evolutionary pathways and, in doing so, strongly privileges not just present genetic structures, but present economic, social, and cultural structures as well. By what right do we do this? Do we even recognize what we are doing?
Alternatively, consider the opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Leaving aside questions of whether developed country elites should deny such technologies to developing countries, it is clear that such a stance privileges present genetic systems — most of which have, in one way or another, already been altered by human activity. The precautionary principle as formulated by some activists — that no technology or practice be introduced unless it can be proved to do no harm — is another example of privileging the present.
Note that we cannot stop these underlying systems from evolving; human population and economic growth, if nothing else, will ensure our species increasingly dominates many natural cycles of the planet. We can reduce the option space and ensure alternatives are not explored. This may or may not be desirable; we don’t know until we ask the right questions.
The point is not that there aren’t good reasons for privileging the present. For example, in many cases we are dealing with very complex systems and the base state of knowledge concerning their structure and dynamics frequently is poor — particularly where a proposed technology or intervention is significant and irreversible and, therefore, a strong element of caution is highly desirable.
But these are rational and operational considerations, capable of resolution through research and knowledge accumulation; they are not where the ideology of privileging the present comes from. The powerful emotional content of the dialogues around global climate change, GMOs, and the precautionary principle tell us that something else is going on.
In part, it is a reaction against the constantly accelerating pace of change that characterizes the modern world, where everything from technology to global governance systems are in perpetual flux. Driving toward a static world where as many evolutionary alternatives as possible are eliminated is a natural response. Frequently, such aspirations are positioned as a return to a Panglossian golden age: an age of morality, stability, prosperity, defined positions in society, and biodiversity and Edenic pastoralism.
The other side of this dynamic, however, is more problematic: an authoritarian and imperialistic imposition of developed country ideology on the world as a whole. Privileging the present supports existing power structures, relationships, and elites. Granted that this is probably not the conscious desire of those involved, it is still a predictable result.
And that illustrates the fundamental problem: Privileging the present has significant effects yet is seldom even recognized as a relevant dynamic, even though when and whether to privilege the present is an important ethical, metaphysical, and religious question. It should be an explicit, not implicit, part of discourses such as the Kyoto negotiations or adoption of the precautionary principle. We have, however, yet to take even the first step: to recognize that we are, in fact, privileging the present, and to explore and define, then accept responsibility for, the implications of that position.
————–
Allenby is environment, health and safety vice president, AT&T, and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. The opinions expressed are those of the author, not necessarily those of any institution with which he is associated.
