A Rational Goal of Sustainability:

The fundamental question (regarding the promotion of a more sustainable livelihood for humans), is-why should we care? 

We can say that nature and the course of events will sort out the future of the Earth.  This is undoubtedly true.  Humans are not ultimately above the forces of mother-nature and so whatever happens can certainly be allowed to ‘just happen’.  This is in fact the philosophy currently being employed, where sustainable planning is not a real motivation for making choices.  Indefinite, ever-lasting life for future generations, in a manner that we would consider pleasant, is no guarantee.

However, the basic answer to the question: why should we care?, seems to have already been agreed on as a rational decision by societies from recorded history to the present.  The course of human evolution, if not telling us much else, tells us that we have consistently sought out paths to decrease our suffering and to allow our population to live with greater life expectancy.  Decreased suffering is the term chosen here, however it can be just as accurately substituted with terms such as ‘increased freedom’ or ‘increased happiness’.  These all essentially mean the same thing.  With an absolute lack of suffering (meaning all your wants and desires are perfectly taken care of), you would also have achieved a maximum amount of freedom and by extension full happiness.

To continue in the investigation of a general inherent goal of lesser suffering and longer life expectancy, one can notice caring (the emotion of sympathy), as fundamental to the human.  It would seem to be not only a quality that humans possess, but other species as well.  We see evidence of this human sympathetic nature all around, through charitable acts and outpourings of good-will to help victims of natural disaster or those who are perceived to be persecuted or deprived of their rights of liberty.  Even holding the door open for someone is an everyday manifestation of the sympathetic nature.  What this shows is that there is apparently some interconnectedness humans feel for each other that is inherent in the core make-up and makes itself evident spontaneously and without coercion.

Through religion, we again notice the same goal manifesting itself.  Religions employ a goal of achieving an ever-lasting state of existence with non-suffering.  For those who have earned it, they will achieve this goal of eternal existence after death.  This may be in heaven, or in paradise, nirvana, etc.  That religions maintain this as their primary goal shows its commonality.  For those who are not devoutly religious (and do not believe there is a supernatural realm where there soul will achieve eternal liberation), they will still have the same, even if unrealized, goal.  A person of a more scientific point of view may agree that, although they don’t believe their soul will live on, they do believe their matter will still remain, and as such will be incorporated into the life cycle of the Earth necessary to the interconnectedness of all life.  The difference in point of view is really not a difference at all.  Both religious and non-religious people can agree on a common goal of eternal life with lesser degree of suffering.  The devoutly religious believe this will happen for their soul in a supernatural realm.  Those who do not believe in the supernatural can accept the life cycle of the Earth (for future generations of humans and other living things), as the eternity of life.  In any regard, whether one is religious or not, the care for one’s own offspring ensures that there is an individual sympathetic viewpoint which relates itself back to providing a sustainable future for future generations.  The devoutly religious may likely agree that if one does not care for the future of the Earth, and for other humans (including their own children and grandchildren), they will likely not be worthy of achieving a supernatural existence for their souls.

It is undoubtedly the case that there could be creatures whose bodies will be better adapted than humans to flourish on an environmentally changed planet.  One may look at dinosaur bones if proof is needed of the extinction of poorly adapted species, or any of the currently endangered species, for ones that are suffering.  It is further maintained, that although it is unclear as to whether humans are in fact capable of planning a sustainable future, it is still a rational point of view simply because it can be contemplated and because this seems to be in keeping with what humans would naturally want.

It is agreed that defining a rational decision is completely dependent on the point of view of the individual making the decision.  For instance, it may have been completely rational for the inhabitants of Easter Island, based on their beliefs, to have cut down all their trees to allow for the erection of their symbolic stone monuments.  But, this may not seem rational to someone looking back today, since it led to the ultimate destruction of their civilization.  Rationality seems to be dependent on some sort of individual goal or goals (even if this can not be fully articulated or even totally defined by the individual making the rational decision.)  In fact, most people are forced to make choices based on numerous goals sometimes in competition with one another, such as achieving financial well-being through more work at the expense of a goal of increased quality of life through more leisure time.

However, even though rational thought is dependent on an individual’s point of reference, there could exist a higher definition of what is rational based on commonly held beliefs of all people regardless of their religion, or cultural background.  This type of rationality would be inherent in our essence and so would be common to all, regardless of a learned belief system or influenced by the cultural environment.  For instance, if the inhabitants of Easter Island were given the following choice, would you like to destroy you civilization or not?, they might well have chosen they would like not to destroy their civilization.  This would seem to be a rational choice.  Applying this basic goal to understand what would be the better course of action (not cutting down all the trees and destroying your environment, or cutting down all the trees and destroying your environment), then requires a deeper understanding of cause and effect.