Our Responsibility to the Future Generation - Essay Example

What, if anything, do we owe future human generation when it comes to environmental goods and services? Name Institution What, if anything, do we owe future human generation when it comes to environmental goods and services? It is often said that the energy we set into the world will at last come back to us. Our current actions have an impact to the future. In the case where the impacts take long to happen, it is clear that it is the future generation that takes the blow. Although, in some cases, it is less likely that our decisions will affect the general course of history, the mere possibility of this imposes on us a great responsibility at least to rethink our actions and consider how the policies we make and the actions we engage in affect our own children and their children will. As such, if your question is whether or not we owe the future, the answer yes, particularly when it comes to our prior actions that are already posing danger on environmental sustainability. Not every action or policy must raise concerns for the sustainability of the ecosystem for the sake of the future generation. However, the conscious acknowledgement that the decisions we make affect people who cannot speak for themselves, make imparts on us a moral responsibility to give voice. Therefore, address or at least consider their interests and their well being is imperative. This issue becomes very complicated as the move for sustainability threatens to deny the current benefits those nature offers to them. It is quite apparent that the needs of the subsequent generation will be quite different from those of the present generation just as those of the past generations were different. Our socioeconomic activities are aimed at serving the needs of our time and the great innovations are aimed at solving present problems to ensure good living among different populations. Being conscious about the needs of the future generations thereby calls for a sacrifice in an attempt to keep the environment safe for future generations. The main question is the degree to which the current generation is supposed to sacrifice and why it should be so obliged to do so. The appeal for our responsibility to future generations, referred to often as our grandchildren, is often a meal for political rhetoric regardless of the subject matter. Media houses and pages on newspapers also carry messages on sustainability and intergenerational responsibility (Wolf, 2007). Even though philanthropy should be appreciated, it should not replace the main responsibility that the current generation has towards saving the future generation. However, the urge to hold the current generation responsible for the sake of future generations at times extend to unexpected areas. One should understand, however, that it is also unfair for the current generation to spend its life worrying about the future generation and forget their part in the world. Even though, it may be not promising to recognize those who invoke nature very frequently; or identify policy parts in which the next generations are outlined in a most reflexive manner as a crucial examination of appropriate action. There is evidence of a widely accepted assumption that rules or rather policies, particularly, concerning man’s interaction with nature, should not be done without putting into consideration generations that are yet to come (Gosseries & Hungerbühler, 2006). Human beings are ever becoming innovative and finding new uses of different parts of nature every time. With the growth in technology, the exploitation of nature is becoming everyman’s endeavor. The urge to discover new things and interaction with nature in a manner that will provide comfort to the current populations could easily supersede the urge to remain responsible to sustainability and conscious to the needs of the future generations. It is possible for the human contest to view invocations for the interests of future generations as more cynical than inspirational. Politicians, who understand that mentioning our children or grandchildren is an expected stump in their speeches could simply mention such statements, sometimes more passionately, yet in reality enact policies that sabotage the very positions they seem to take in public on this matter (Page, 1995). Such blind policies whether deliberate or not are likely to harm or impoverish future human beings. For instance, different national leaders come in public to claim the importance of peace in the world while silently supporting the making of nuclear weapons in their country. The creation of such weapons not only leads to overexploitation of the environment but also threatens the world. Constant testing of such weapons terribly pollutes the environment. It is thereby safe to say that we understand our effects on nature and may be very much aware of its long term impacts, yet we have not at all committed to enacting and abiding by policies that shall safeguard the future generation (Hiskes, 2005). Even though some of those who seem to reverently champion the interests of future generations may not be sincere, it is very necessary to at least consider what those needs are and how we can take them into account if we are surely committed and motivated to remaining relevant in this matter. Like mentioned before, the current generation should also be in a situation to strike a balance between the interests of the future generations its own interests or desire. What we should understand is that parts of nature are interconnected. An interaction with one part could easily send effects to another part (Schuppert, 2011). The issues of global warming, for instance, are the effect of prior exploitation of nature for metal, which were later used to make machines, which in turn required fuel. It is the bi-products of the fuels that are emitted in the air. This causes the direct pollution and eats way the ozone layer causing global warming and other unbalanced weather conditions that are not healthy to the human race and other species. With this, it can safely be claimed that careless human actions and blind exploitation of nature poses danger to future generations, but also other species with which we share the world. We should thereby hold ourselves accountable and use the environment sustainably, not likely we are the last generation to existing in this world. However, it is the very question of sustainability that is hidden in a cacophony of complex theories that have not been clarified to the human race. Even if one accepted that they surely owe the future generations and need to do something to safeguard the environment for this sake, the limits to which the current generation is supposed to extent its actions are not clearly defined. The impact of human actions to nature, environment and future generations, are currently acknowledged by different personalities and institutions all over the world. In this case, thereby, reminding people about this may not necessarily a question of great concern. The association between financial growth, which is the main concern of most nations, the well being of the human race and achieving sustainability is quite a complex issue. According to Gifford Pinchot, the human race has the right to use nature to get what it needs (Everard, 2009). However, he states that we equally have a responsibility to get what we need in a manner that shall not deprive our descendants of what they shall need. Such language anticipated the seminal work of WCED, (World Commission on Environment and Development). This commission defined a sustainable development as one that meets the requirements of the present generation devoid of disadvantaging the ability of the future generations to achieve their own (Tremmel, 2006). This claim suggests that a sustainable future be achieved if social and biophysical conditions required to support man economic activities are maintained from one generation to the other. More importantly, WCED, associates strong emphasis on the issue of equity particularly the need to alleviate in a society where people needs remain unmet. There are, though, other considerations that make this issue quite complex. It is clear that the human contest is exploiting nature in an attempt to solve the problems of our current time. If such endeavors are limited, it may not be possible to respond to all issues that face this generation and thereby man may not get what he needs or wants in this environment. No generation has a prior knowledge of what it shall be like, its size, its problems and where it shall be located. Consequently, it helps to take the perspective of a generation that is placed somewhere along the time spectrum, but knows not in advance where it shall be located. Obviously, such a generation wants to inherit a good conditioned earth as it was for the previous generation and have access To everything in it like it were for the outgoing generation (Page, January 01, 1995). This implies that every generation should pass on the generation to the next generation in the same way like it got it with an effort to achieve equitable access to its resources. Each age group has a responsibility to care for the earth and benefit from it. This is, however, practically impossible. It is obvious that in trying to utilize the resources of this planet, the particular generation will affect the planet. As the nature is interrelated, one part of it will automatically affect the other part. If a man affects nature this way, it is automatic that the next generation can never find it in the same way the earlier generation did (Dewhurst, 2013). On another account, it is arguable that the next generation will have totally different needs from those of the current population. As such, it does not need the planet in the same way as this generation needs it. Such views make this whole question complex and thereby raise questions as o whether or not the current generation owes anything to the future generation in terms of using the natural resources. Even in his simple existence, man has effects on the environment and in the quest to satisfy human needs affect nature. One could at a point try to figure out how one should be blamed for trying to solve his problems and make his own life comfortable (Dewhurst, 2013). There is a notion that an attempt to stabilize the climate shall require a reduction in the levels of production and consumption. This is a faced that is propelling the de-growth movement. Proponent of this movement note that greenhouse gases be inclined to enlarge with the level of economic activities as high income and consumption culminate into an increased demand for carbon-intensive goods. Analysts have favor free market policies over checking economic activities for the sake of sustainability put forward an analogous argument that counters such thoughts. They claim that the production requires the use of energy and cutting of energy or shifting to more expensive forms of energy automatically derails production (Woods, 2010). The concern raised in this is that soon the push for sustainable growth may undermine the efforts of the current generation to meet its own needs and address its problems. Even though such counter arguments make it quite complex and hard to come to a conclusion about using the environment responsibly, they should not be enough for us to forego our responsibility in taking care of the earth in which we exist (Dekker, 2005). In the range or rather question where the current generation strives to increase the happiness of the coming generation by slightly reducing its own comfortable life; the question becomes an issue of balance. The philosophical approaches of utilitarianism and Rawlsianism can be applied in a way to determine how this balance could be achieved in the context of intergenerational (Maser, 2011). Utilitarianism analysis argues for more present oriented regulations while Rawlsianism is mostly silent about this issue. In utilitarian philosophy, the idea of the ethical value of an action is based on the contribution of the action to its overall utility. This implies that the action is judged based on its contribution to pleasure or happiness as it is examined among all persons. In our case, all persons refer to both the current and future generation. As such this, philosophical approach advocates for human beings to engage in actions that would contribute to balanced happiness and pleasure between the current and future generations. On the other hand, Rawlsianism purports that the moral worth of any action or policy should be evaluated based on the respect it offers to basic and inherent rights rather than the general good to the society (Hoffine, 2009). The two philosophical approaches stand parallel but could be summed to strike a balance and achieve human actions that shall achieve happiness for the current and future generations and still respect human rights and wants If the next generations will at a point sit back and refer their problems to our actions today, then we should be responsible and thereby we owe them. The notion that we are more inclined to do more for ourselves and less for the coming generations is quite unsettling and surprising; intergenerational justice and equity are main concerns that may transform anyone’s analysis of almost every area of public policy and law (Viera, & Marder, 2013). The concern about what we owe the future generations or our effect on the coming generations is not a disconnect area of inquiry, but the main element lurking in the foundation of almost each policy question. In asking whether future generations deserve our attention, it is necessary too to ask why they do not deserve our consideration (Doherty). One may argue that future generations have done nothing for the current generation to deserve our sacrifice. However, this thought is absurd. If the desert shall be based on reward for the actions taken, then the future generations are never in the game even before it begins (Brown, 2013). If we want to decide that future generations deserve anything to justify our change of actions, then this should be based on something inherent concerning what they will or can do when they finally come into existence. To sum this up, it is clear that the socioeconomic activities of the current generation have an impact on the future generation. We thereby owe the future generation a conscious and responsible handling of the environment. This is so because we can only enjoy the benefits of nature today because previous generations never tampered with it. However, this should not be done in a manner the compromises the ability of the current generation to meet its own needs. Consequently, relevant institution should enact policies that shall strike a balance between meeting the requirements of the present generation and at the same time sustaining the environment for the future generation. References Brown, W. E., (2013). Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment. Retrieved from http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/ librev/rev/iidh/ cont/13/dtr/dtr2.pdf Doherty, P. (N/A). What Do We Owe to Future Generations? Retrieved from http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/files/mssi/Doherty_What-Do-We-Owe-to-Future- Generations_2010_1.pdf Viera, I. P. & Marder, M. (2013). What Do We Owe the Future? New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/what-do-we-owe-the- future/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Maser, C. (2011). Social-environmental sustainability for a better world: do we owe anything to the future. Retrieved fro http://chrismaser.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/do-we-owe- anything-to-the-future%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8/ Woods, K. (2010). Human rights and environmental sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Dekker, H. A. L. (2005). In pursuit of land tenure security: Essays on land reform and land tenure. Amsterdam: Pallas Publ. Zollitsch, W. (2007). Sustainable food production and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics ; EurSAFE 2007, Vienna, Austria, September 13-15, 2007. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Tremmel, J. (2006). Handbook of intergenerational justice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Everard, M. (2009). The business of biodiversity. Southampton, UK: WIT Press Dewhurst, E. (January 01, 2013). Intergenerational balance, mandatory retirement and age discrimination in Europe: How can the ECJ better support national courts in finding a balance between the generations?. Common Market Law Review, 50, 5.) Schuppert, F. (January 01, 2011). Climate change mitigation and intergenerational justice. Environmental Politics, 20, 3.) Hiskes, R. P. (January 01, 2005). The Right to a Green Future: Human Rights, Environmentalism, and Intergenerational Justice. Human Rights Quarterly : a Comparative and International Journal of sthe Social Sciences, Philosophy, and Law, 27, 4, 1346-1369. Wolf, C. (January 01, 2007). Intergenerational Justice. 279-294. Gosseries, A., & Hungerbühler, M. (January 01, 2006). Rule Change and Intergenerational Justice. Handbook of Intergenerational Justice, 106-128. Page, T. (January 01, 1995). Intergenerational justice as opportunity. A Survey of Ecological Economics / Edited by Rajaram Krishnan, Jonathan M. Harris, and Neva R. Goodwin. Read More