Kloor’s recent blast about the schism in environmentalism echoes Nordhaus and Shellenberger‘s claim that environmentalism was dead or should die. These reoccurring tussles over the purpose of environmentalism stumble over a familiar tension: sustainable development versus environmental protection.
We can avoid the tussle by avoiding connotations of stasis, status quo, or worse, primitivism. We must be enticed to look to the future, not to the past: too many people have not yet achieved lifestyles they want to sustain and we must nurture the human desires to aspire, explore, and sacrifice. My rationale builds on the work of Brundtland, Norton, and Solow. The commons are the key to sustainability and we must devise ways to nurture them.
We must promote world peace and human dignity. World peace, I hope, is obvious: it protects life and community, warns against hubris and abuse of power, requires tolerance and collaboration, and reminds us to treat others as we would like to be treated. Human dignity requires the continuous improvement of human potential. It can be found in themes that intentionally echo in the US Declaration of Independence’s call for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Dignity advances enlightenment goals and moderates the age-old tension between individual and community. I advocate for dignity—not Jefferson’s happiness or Locke’s property—because achieving it requires progress toward our potential rather than entertainment or obtainment. Dignity, like liberty, connotes the ability of humans to choose their own actions, but, and this is an important but, it also imposes positive obligations to actively assist (and not harm) others in their pursuits of their potentials. Dignity promotes liberty and justice for all.