ETHICS IN THE GREEN LIFEBOAT

Vivienne Elanta 12021131

Critical Thinking Essay

S 206 Aidan Davison

Peter Huber belongs to a growing anti-environmentalist movement, which he calls “Hard Green”. His main thesis is that the environment needs to be saved from the environmentalists, people he refers to as “Soft Green”. He argues that most environmentalists are eco-fascists and are anti-human. He holds a strong anthropocentric view and suggests that “the destruction of nature is an aesthetic disaster, but not a utilitarian one.”(p161) In his opinion we ultimately really do not need nature and we can “go it alone.” (p161)

In support of his argument, Huber attacks the environmental movement by making it guilty by association. He states that Garrett Hardin’s Lifeboat Ethic leads to the eco-fascism of Pentti Linkola and Theodore Kaczynski, and further claims that Garrett Hardin is a soft green, therefore, environmentalists are eco-fascists and anti-human. This is a philosophical fallacy, similar to saying that “some nurses are angels; all angels have wings; so therefore some nurses have wings.” (Thomas Mautner, 1996, p.194) It is valid to say that there is a small faction within the environmental movement, with a strong eco-fascist view of the world. His argument becomes weak when he tars all environmentalists, with the same brush.

He acknowledges that Soft Greens have a strong belief in the intrinsic value of life, but seem inconsistent with that view when it comes to letting tapeworms live in their own gut. They will also go out of their way to save a snail from extinction, even if it means not repairing a dam, at the peril of human life. Here Huber uses a common propagandist technique of excessive exaggeration to a point of absurdity.

He rightly draws our attention to the fact that the “lifeboat is twice as crowded, but still well afloat” (p173), a quarter-century after Hardin first wrote the essay on Lifeboat Ethic. His argument diminishes in strength, because he fails to explain that the very reason the Lifeboat is still afloat for the richer nations is because they are still practicing lifeboat ethics on a massive scale, as the current refugee crisis illustrates.

Huber says that the environmental movement always sets its “ethical sights farther out in time and space.” He continues by saying that “ Hard Greens do not trust far-future telescopes at all”(p163). They prefer the immediate gratification of the “rosy, short term benefits” of the industrial growth machine. Here he basically denies that scientific progress allows us to see the consequences of our actions with increasing accuracy.

Peter Huber attempts to convince the reader that the Hard Greens are the “real greens”, who really care about the environment and that the rest of the environmental movement are a bunch of dangerous half-wits. Using tactics of ridiculing and trivialising in an attempt to discredit the environmental movement, Huber has succeeded in convincing me that the he is a part of a movement, which is very dangerous, because it supports unlimited unsustainable industrial growth.

In conclusion I think that Peter Huber’s chapter on “Ethics on the Green Lifeboat” is a gross misinterpretation of the environmental movement. He does not accept that the environmental movement comprises of a vast diversity of people with a multitude of different views. He truly does not understand the intrinsic value of all life, otherwise he would not trivialise the environmentalists’ deep commitment and long-term vision for the survival of complex life on earth. Contrary to his belief, we cannot “go it alone”, because human beings are an intrinsic and inseparable part of the web of life. We need a long-range view, one that aims towards a sustainable future, so that we can stand in the present with integrity.

REFERENCES:

Huber, Peter (1999) ‘Ethics in the Green Lifeboat’ from Huber, Peter, Hard Green! Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists, Basic Books, New York

Mautner, Thomas (Ed) (1996) Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth

Page 1