Topics Environment

Question Prof. Hawking has voiced his opinion that environmental problems will eventually bring the demise of humanity on the earth, and therefore we should immediately begin to prepare for emigration to some extra-terrestrial destination. If we are in any way responsible for the contamination of our earthly environment, do we have the right to endanger any other celestial body?

Accepted:
December 22, 2006

Comments

The eventual demise of humanity seems inevitable, so that mereprospect doesn't seem noteworthy. That our activities cause some damageto other things also seems inevitable.

Surely,however, we are responsible for enviornmental damage that we cause. Even if some damange is unavoidable, we can--and should--find ways tominimize this damage here on earth or wherever else we find ourselves.

Preparingfor emigration off-world seems a hasty response to me, but not becausewe are likely to destroy celestial bodies. Rather, Hawking's conclusonsthat there is nothing we can do to avoid an environmental catostrophehere on earth seems hasty and counter-productive: we don't have thetechnological and financial resources to move the population to anotherworld, but do have the means to reduce the damage that we are doing tothis planet. Therefore, I would think we would be wise to focus onthat.

There are many interesting philosophical questions here.For example, when assessing the environmental damage that we cause towhat extent and how should we consider the interests of non-human lifeor even non-living things? Should we consider the interests of unbornhumans or other things that do not yet exist, but might? Finally, howstrong is the obligation to act to prevent an envirommentalcatastrophe? For example, do we have moral obligations to theenviroment or to nature that trump obligations we have to other humans?For example, is it okay to act injustly to one another if we determinethat this is necessary to prevent a large-scale environmentalcatastrophe?