Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures

The Swiss expert report suggests that the inherent dignity of a living being be identified with its inherent value. But the phrase “inherent value of a living being” seems to connote two concepts of inherent value. One has a morally obligating character but is counterintuitive because of its egalitarianism. The other is one of non-moral value. It is more compatible with considered intuitions but insufficient for substantiating the expert report’s claim that human beings have moral duties towards animals and plants. The paper discusses these concepts. Consideration is then given to the problem of how discursive support can be generated for the expert report’s claim that human beings have the moral duty to abstain from impairing those functions and abilities of a non-human being that members of its species as a rule can practice.     

Human dignity and the dignity of creatures

In their report for the Swiss government on the notion of the dignity of creatures, Philipp Balzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber analyze the relationship between human dignity and the dignity of creatures, taking them as two categorically different concepts. Human dignity is defined as the “moral right not to be humiliated,” whereas the dignity of creatures is taken to be “the inherent value of non-human living beings.” To my mind there is no need to draw a categorical distinction between the two concepts. Both notions could be brought together under an all-encompassing concept of the inherent value of living beings, humans and non-humans alike, a concept one could name “the dignity of living beings.” Indeed, this very notion underlies the position taken in the report, although this is not made explicit by the authors themselves. As the aim of the paper is only to clarify the concepts used, I do not go beyond this “internal” critique of their position, i.e., I don’t assess how the claims articulated via these concepts — the claim that humans and/or creatures have an inherent value consisting in a supposed intrinsic good — are to be justified, although I myself would be rather skeptical that this might be successfully done.     

Human Dignity and the Dignity of Creatures

In their report for the Swiss government onthe notion of the dignity of creatures, PhilippBalzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber analyzethe relationship between human dignity and the dignityof creatures, taking them as two categoricallydifferent concepts. Human dignity is defined as the``moral right not to be humiliated,' whereas thedignity of creatures is taken to be ``the inherentvalue of nonhuman living beings.' To my mind there isno need to draw a categorical distinction between thetwo concepts. Both notions could be brought togetherunder an all-encompassing concept of the inherentvalue of living beings, humans and non-humans alike,a concept one could name ``the dignity of livingbeings.' Indeed, this very notion underlies theposition taken in the report, although this is notmade explicit by the authors themselves.As the aim of the paper is only to clarify theconcepts used, I do not go beyond this ``internal'critique of their position, i.e., I don't assess howthe claims articulated via these concepts – theclaim that humans and/or creatures have an inherentvalue consisting in a supposed intrinsic good – areto be justified, although I myself would be ratherskeptical that this might be successfully done.     

On vegetarianism,morality, and science: A counter reply

I recently took issue with Kathryn George's contention that vegetarianism cannot be a moral obligation for most human beings, even assuming that Tom Regan's stringent thesis about the equal inherent value of humans and many sentient nonhumans is correct. I argued that both Regan and George are incorrect in claiming that his view would permit moral agents to kill and eat innocent, non-threatening rights holders. An unequal rights view, by contrast, would permit such actions if a moral agent's health or life is at stake. I then argued that current nutritional research does not support Professor George's claim that some wealthy adult males (and many fewer wealthy women) are the only persons whose health does not require the consumption of nonhuman animals and their products. In her 1992 response to my critique, George did not address my moral argumentation. She concentrated her entire paper on a wholesale rejection of my discussion of nutrition. Although she now takes a somewhat more moderate position on who can safely contemplate strict vegetarianism, she still believes that most people are not in a position to follow such a diet. In my counter-reply, I argue that her rejection is based upon numerous distortions, omissions, and false charges of fallacy. She even devotes a substantial section of her paper to criticizing me for saying the opposite of what I actually wrote. As I did in my earlier paper, I cite current research, including George's own preferred source on the topic of vegetarianism, to support my view. I conclude that Professor George has still not shown that for most human beings it is dangerous to follow a diet that omits nonhuman animals and their products. Moral agents who take the rights of humansand nonhumans seriously will find vegetarianism well worth considering.     

Who can be morally obligated to be a vegetarian?

Kathryn Paxton George has recently argued that vegetarianism cannot be a moral obligation for most human beings, even if Tom Regan is correct in arguing that humans and certain nonhuman animals are equally inherently valuable. She holds that Regan's liberty principle permits humans to kill and eat innocent others who have a right to life, provided that doing so prevents humans from being made worse off. George maintains that obstaining from meat and dairy products would in fact make most humans worse off. I argue that Regan's liberty principle either contradicts his equal rights view or does not permit the slaughter of another for food. I show that a different view recognizing the moral rights of nonhumans but according them less value than normal adult humans, the unequal rights view, would permit such action if human survival or health depended upon it. However, it would also permit the slaughter of innocent humans in the same circumstances. Finally, I argue that current nutritional research does not support George's contention that most humans would suffer if they ceased eating other animals and their products.     

Is there a morally relevant difference between human and animal nonpersons?

It is commonly believed that we humans are justified in exploiting animals because we are higher beings:persons who have highly complex, autonomous lives as moral agents. However, there are many marginal humans who are not and never will be persons. Those who think it is permissible to exploit animal nonpersons but wrong to do the same to human nonpersons must show that there is a morally relevant difference between the two groups. Speciesists, who believe that membership in a species whose normal adults are persons is sufficient for a right to life, attempt to do just this. As the failure of the best arguments which can be marshalled on their behalf indicates, they are unable to justify their view. I conclude that, although there is a morally relevant difference between human nonpersons and most animal nonpersons, this difference is not an indication of superior moral status. We would do better to abandon speciesism and the assumption thatpersonhood is morally paramount for a view which implies that both human and nonhuman nonpersons are morally considerable and have a right to life.     

Sewage as a resource: a case study of afforestation using sewage irrigation in Jaipur,Rajasthan, India

Summary Human beings use huge quantities of water every day for drinking, cleaning and various cultural functions and dispose of it as wastewater within sewage. With increase in population, the magnitude of this waste is multiplying enormously and beyond the recycling capacity of local ecosystems to become a major health and environmental hazard. Re-use of wastewater for afforestation purposes in the form of sewage silviculture combines the dual benefit of water conservation with environmental sanitation. Such experiments are being carried out at the World Forest Arboretum in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Biological treatment of the sewage before application, to improve its irrigational quality, to remove harmful chemicals and to prevent the risk of these passing into the human food chain is being undertaken. The aquatic weeds Lemna and Eichhornia are being used to purify the wastewater. The technique is both economically viable and ecologically sustainable.Dr Rajiv K. Sinha is assistant professor in Human Ecology at the University of Rajasthan.     

Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics towards Environmental Ethics?

Three types of concern for animal welfare are widelyheld: Animals should feel well, they should function well, andthey should lead natural lives. The paper deals with a well-knownanswer to the question of why such concerns are morallyappropriate: Human beings have direct duties towards animals,because animals are beings that can flourish, the flourishing ofanimals is intrinsically or inherently valuable, and that whichis conducive to their flourishing is a legitimate object of moralconcern. Looking for a tenable conception of direct dutiestowards animals, the following questions are discussed: Whatshould we take it to mean that ``animal flourishing isintrinsically or inherently valuable?'' Under what conditions doesa living being's ability to flourish create direct duties towardsthis being? Is awareness or sentience required for there to bedirect duties towards a living being? Does such a requirementimply that moral concerns for animals would be limited to theirfeeling well, or does it also give way to having moral concernsfor their functioning well and leading natural lives? Can onetake into account considered judgements that claim that towardsdifferent animals we have moral duties that differ in kind and/orstrength? If environmental ethics cannot be based on theconception of direct duties here discussed, should one draw adistinction between duties towards ourselves, our fellow humanbeings, or animals, and duties regarding plants, or collectiveentities such as populations, species, and ecosystems?     

SOIL: AN OVERLOOKED, UNDERVALUED AND VITAL PART OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Soils are taken for granted by the majority of the human population, but despite the image of being just dirt, soils are an extremely important component of the environment. Soils can be observed to have a complex structure, with unique biological, chemical and physical characteristics. They support plants, the primary producers, and supply them with moisture and nutrients, so providing all other terrestrial ecosystems with the basis of the food chain. With the exception of small contributions from aquatic sources, virtually all human food is produced either directly from crops grown in soils, or from animals which graze upon herbage itself rooted in the soil. Soils are under considerable threat from over-exploitation, pollution and misuse. Many decisions about land use are made without consideration of the underlying soils and for any serious proposals for sustainable use of the land, soil properties and functions should be recognized. Soils participate in the hydrological cycle, as well as the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. They intercept, absorb and inactivate pollutants, but also produce greenhouse gases. Soils have long been recognized as a major natural body, worthy of investigation in their own right, and are now also being seen as a major participant in the global cycles of the environment.     

Development of appropriate technologies: A possible way forward for environmental protection of developing countries like China

Summary To solve environmental problems a vast amount of manpower, material and financial resources has been spent. Some people consider that this is necessary, and a reasonable price which human beings must pay for development, especially industrialisation. Maybe it is true. But can people solve the environmental problems of developing countries better when they have learned the experiences and lessons of developed countries? One possible way is proposed in this paper, which makes a special reference to the real situation in China. The fundamental idea is to develop and apply appropriate technologies in the phase of national industrialisation. This will help developing countries to achieve desired environmental effects more economically. The appropriate technologies mentioned in the paper are of two kinds: appropriate industrial production technologies and appropriate environmental technologies. The development of the former will help to reduce environmental pollution and other problems caused by industrialisation. The development of the latter will enable developing countries to keep an acceptable environmental quality within a controlled cost. In the paper the definition of appropriate technologies is clarified, and the criteria for the selection and evaluation of appropriate technologies are proposed. The possibility of a realisation of developing the economy and protecting the environment at same time is then analysed. The conclusion is that development and application of appropriate technologies is an optimal strategy when the real conditions of developing countries like China are considered. Finally, some of the initial appropriate environmental technologies which should be developed are suggested.Professor Ranjie Hou has recently been working as a Research Fellow at the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Karlsrube University, Federal Republic of Germany.     

Agro-Biodiversity Conservation in Europe: Ethical Issues

While it is commonly acknowledged that the ecosystemic, and the inter- and intra-specific diversity of natural life is under threat of being irremediably lost, there is much less awareness that the diversity in agro-ecosystems is also under threat. This paper is focused on the biodiverse agro-ecosystems generated by landraces (LRs), i.e., farmer-developed populations of cultivated species that show among- and within-population diversity and are linked to traditional cultures. The aim of this work is to arouse concern about their loss, to explain how they can be conserved, and to discuss values that support maintaining and/or restoring on-farm agro-biodiversity. Although agriculture has relied on biodiverse agro-ecosystems for millennia, most of them have disappeared or are disappearing due to profound transformations in the socio-economic context. This is discussed with particular reference to the European situation. The positive values of LRs and LR systems that support their conservation are discussed along with possible objections. The conservation of LRs and LR systems can be well justified on ethical grounds. In particular, the complex intertwining of the biological and cultural contexts of LR systems, which continuously creates new adaptive responses to the changing socio-economic and eco-physical processes, is a value that strongly motivates conservation, particularly when the needs of future generations are considered.     

Biosphere II: Meeting ground for ecology and technology

Summary Biosphere II is a new project to build a self-contained ecological system containing humans, plants, and as many other living organisms as necessary for long-term sustenance. Soviet space scientists have already designed Bios 3, simulating conditions on board a flight to Mars. In building Biosphere II, the Institute of Ecotechnics (IE), in collaboration with Space Biospheres Ventures, Decisions Teams Limited, The Environmental Research Laboratory associated with The University of Arizona, and Sarbid Limited, plan to build the prototype of an artificial world in which environmental and ecological processes can be observed closely; An educational, scientific, and ethical laboratory, Biosphere II will raise public consciousness of the interdependence of all life. It will also serve as a control world where possibly harmful environmental effects can be modelled before they reach a crisis stage. Eventually the biospheres are to be marketed and set up in space as the biosphere, no longer in conflict with but aided by human technology, puts forth its young upon other celestial bodies.Dorion Sagan's most recent books areMicrocosmos andOrigins of Sex, both co-authored with Lynn Margulis. He is working onBiospheres, a book on closed ecological systems which is to be published shortly.     

Some pitfalls of ‘manstream’ environmental theory and practice

Summary Radical environmentalists consider the environmental crisis to be ultimately one of culture and character. However, in analyses and strategies for social transformation, non-feminist greens have generally accepted the Patriarchal conception of human motivation, which is based on a rational, impersonal (read Masculine) model of Man. Thus, it is implicitly assumed that the motivations underlying the environmental crisis are greed or self-interest (deemed rational motives in Western Patriarchal culture). Owing to this male-centred perspective on human nature, green strategies have ultimately relied on an appeal to reason. This, at least, has failed relative to the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.It is argued that a focus on the abuse of power leads to a more useful analysis of the causes of human oppression and environmental exploitation. The abuse of power can be understood as an attempt to overcompensate for unmet emotional needs (e. f. for love, recognition, and a sense of belonging) through an excessive drive for gratification in other dimensions of life. In Patriarchal thought, emotional needs are largely denied, being non-rational and non-masculine, and hence have also been largely ignored in social policy. This realisation suggests new strategies.Dr Janis Birkeland was an attorney, architect and planner San Francisco, USA, and now teaches at the Department of Architecture, University of Tasmania. A more extensive discussion of these points can be found in Birkeland (1993a).     

An economic scenario that gives top priority to saving the environment rather than encouraging production growth

Summary Welfare, or satisfaction of wants, is not only dependent on produced goods but also on the quality of the environment, leisure time, income distribution, working conditions, employment and the safety of the future.The same amount of production and consumption requires more labour with environmental conservation than without. Under current conditions, environmental measures, nevertheless, often lead to a loss of jobs. The paper enunciates in which conditions environmental measures lead to more employment. In the scenario study the necessary environmental measures have been formulated, their effects on the environment have been estimated in physical terms and their costs in money terms. The (negative) consequences for production and the (positive) consequences for employment have been scanned with the aid of an econometric model.In the short term (20 years) the effect on production is less than expected, among others because employment is created for many jobless: part of the measures could be carried out free of charge. In the long term more measures have to be taken and the possibilities for an ever-growing production in the industrialized world will probably diminish.In the paper, it is explained why saving the environment is not only possible, but necessary as well, in order to evade overshoots in the future and to safeguard the living conditions for generations to come. The author sincerely hopes that studies like this will be elaborated for other countries. By then the politicians and the public might become convinced that it is possible and necessary to shift the priority of economic policy to saving the environment.Dr Roefie Hueting is Head of the Department for Environment Statistics, of the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics. In 1970, he published Wat is de natuur ons waard? (What is nature's value to us?), a collection of articles from the years 1967–1970 on the deterioration of the environment, and economic growth. In 1974, he took (cum laude) a doctor's degree, his thesis being entitled Nieuwe schaarste en economische groei. An updated version in English has been published, in 1980, under the title New Scarcity and Economic Growth. He has published numerous papers and articles on environmental problems, both in Dutch and English, for seminars, periodicals and collections.     

Environmental problem-solving and land-use management: A proposed structure for Australia

A three-tiered structure of land-use and environmental management is here proposed for Australia. The structure is based on the idea that environment means the environment of people, and that environmental problems arise when a change in the interaction between people and their environment leads to conflicts about the use of land and resources. The heterogeneity of society means that a range of human aspirations and value systems must be satisfied by environmental managers. Existing methods of environmental management fail to achieve these objectives, due to inadequate perception of environmental problems by decision-makers, and the inability of currently available impact assessment techniques to resolve human conflicts associated with the use of land and resources. The main work of planning and managing land use and the environment would be carried out by regional authorities, supported by federal and state policy. Examples are given of moves towards regional administration in England and Wales, Western Australia, Australia and New Zealand. Community participation in the decision-making process is essential and can be achieved by electoral representation to the authoritative bodies and through procedures that ensure informed public comment on planning proposals.     

The Good Life of Creatures with Dignity Some Comments on the Swiss Expert Opinion

The notion of Dignity of Creatures has been voted into the Swiss Federal Constitution by a plebiscite. Philipp Balzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber have given an expert opinion for the Swiss government to clarify the notion of Dignity of Creatures. According to them, by voting this notion into the Swiss constitution, the Swiss have chosen for a limited biocentric approach towards biotechnology. In such an approach genetic engineering of non-human beings is only allowed insofar that their own good is not impaired. It is, however, not clear when the good of a non-human being is impaired. I defend the position that – even if we confine ourselves to animals – their good goes beyond their well being.     

A human ecological assessment of air quality management: A convergence in economic and ecological thinking?

Traditional air pollution management practices are examined using the human ecological framework adopted by Boyden and others (1981) in their study of Hong Kong—the biohistorical or biosocial approach. The subsequent analysis of current air quality management practices assesses their effectiveness in protecting the overall health of both humans and the natural environment. The uncertainties inherent in air pollution management practices which emerge highlight the need to reduce emissions rather than rely on scientific knowledge to define clean air. The assessment also clearly defines roles for research in various areas such as atmospheric models, health effects, and environmental damage. The final recommendations emphasize the need for the introduction of such incentives to reduce emissions as economic instruments and warn against using health information to define clean air. Health and environmental damage information can, however, be used in risk assessment strategies together with atmospheric dispersion models.     

The good life of creatures with dignity some comments on the swiss expert opinion

The notion of Dignity of Creatures has been voted into the Swiss Federal Constitution by a plebiscite. Philipp Balzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber have given an expert opinion for the Swiss government to clarify the notion of Dignity of Creatures. According to them, by voting this notion into the Swiss constitution, the Swiss have chosen for a limited biocentric approach towards biotechnology. In such an approach genetic engineering of non-human beings is only allowed insofar that their own good is not impaired. It is, however, not clear when the good of a non-human being is impaired. I defend the position that — even if we confine ourselves to animals — their good goes beyond their well being.     

The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals

The creation of transgenic animals by means of modern techniques of genetic manipulation is evaluated in the light of different interpretations of the concept of intrinsic value. The zoocentric interpretation, emphasizing the suffering of individual, sentient animals, is described as an extension of the anthropocentric interpretation. In a biocentric or ecocentric approach the concept of intrinsic value first of all denotes independence of humans and a non-instrumental relation to animals. In the zoocentric approach of Bernard Rollin, genetic engineering is seen as a morally neutral tool, as long as the animal does not suffer as a result of it. Robert Colwell who defends an ecocentric ethic, makes a sharp distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals. Genetic manipulation of wild species is a serious moral issue, in contrast to genetic manipulation of domesticated species which is no problem at all for Colwell. Both authors do not take the species-specific nature (or telos) of domesticated animals seriously. When domestication is seen as a process between the two poles of the wild animal and the human construct (which can be patented), the technique of genetic manipulation can only be seen as a further encroachment upon the intrinsic value of animals. At the level of molecular biology, the concept of an animal's telos loses its meaning.     

三环式开发草类资源生产蛋白质食物技术

草类资源分布广、贮量大、成分复杂；至今大部分仍处于自生自灭之中，而人类所需蛋白质营养十分紧张，赖以生存的肉乳蛋品生产所需高蛋白饲料也很缺乏．传统农业、畜牧业、水产业已不能满足这两大需要。作者在科学实验和生产实践的基础上，从工业化生产角度提出以草类为基础原料．经蕈菌－蚯蚓－禽畜３个环节生产蛋白质食物的新工艺路线，对补充上述两大需求的来源提出了一条有效的途径。