From a moral point of view, can we expect less developed countries to protect their nature?
There is relatively little untouched nature left in Germany. The areas are predominantly used for industrial agriculture, human settlements, industry and commerce. As soon as protective measures lead to the return of large predators, such as wolves, there are already vehement calls for their shooting because they supposedly harm livestock farming and human safety. On the other hand, we demand that the habitats of the last remaining tigers, lions, snow leopards, etc., be preserved in other countries, even though the poverty in these countries often means that the people themselves have to fight for their very survival. The clearing of rainforests to make way for cropland or timber is also viewed very critically by us Europeans, who have been doing this for centuries. To what extent is this double standard ethically acceptable?
(21 votes)
Loading...
Hello Rennegent,
The question confronts a (historical) idea of equality with a thought of sustainability. Yeah, it’d be kind of fair if every nation returns to its own doorstep. And it would also be kind of fair if any nation could decide to declare its own nature as worthy of protection or not. However, climate change shows that such nationalistic thinking does not work. Everything is connected. We must therefore also combine various moral approaches.
There would be inspiration from climate ethics. It deals with questions whether ‘poor’ countries with historically low emissions do not have the same entitlement to environmental pollution as ‘rich’ countries. This may also be intuitively appealing, but unfortunately this would be fatal for the earth. A solution to this would be sharing low-emission technologies or other practices. Adapted to biodiversity, there would be the idea of a nature conservation trade (‘poor’ countries are ‘rich’ Countries for their protection are rewarded or substituted for the missed economic growth).
It will also come to economic growth thanks to new techniques. You don’t have to cook our 200 years of Ibdustrie developer, you can skip considerable stretches of this time thanks to new technology.
And that can also lead us to be overtaken by a number of countries that are working in the same way, because the change from existing old technology to new, real harder…
You look at the ammen fairy from green growth, but it won’t work. There are already enormous gains in efficiency, but these have never led to a saving in resource consumption, but medium rebound effects to even higher consumption. Example LED. So energy efficient. As a result, house facades, whole skylines and bridges will become big screens, as can be seen in Shanghai. Or Burj Khalifa.
Hmm, what do you want to tell the Chinese? Imagine any Chinese would have a second or third car. LG.
Thank you for your answer. From my point of view, there is indeed a considerable contradiction here between the moral concept of justice and the global requirements for nature and climate protection. I believe that this can only be dissolved if the rich countries make maximum efforts to enable the poorer countries to increase the living standards of their population in an environmentally sustainable manner without causing further damage. We’re far from that. We are paying development aid, but this is mainly without commitment and, due to the widespread corruption in the recipient countries, is usually in dark channels. We benefit significantly from the wage differential by shifting productions of wage-intensive products to poor countries or by purchasing these products from there at dumping prices. For example, the low prices in Germany can only be realized in clothing. Included in these countries the environment and the protection of workers. In this way, global environment and climate protection cannot be implemented. If we are not willing to share our prosperity and, as industrialized countries, to eliminate poverty in the world, the environment and climate will continue to be the victims. A main reason for environmental destruction is the overpopulation. In prosperous countries, birth rates are much lower and this is well known. Another reason we should have interest in better conditions in poor countries.
It’s not about money from the countries. It’s not the government that blews or wilds. There are individual people who don’t know any other sexual sources of income. You could simply decide HERE; everything from abroad is taxed to the highest. 100% tax, for example. Or 300, 400%
Then you could counter HERE. And still support locals, and with taxpayers start projects or invest in education
Of course it is the government. Or do you think the competent authorities look at how people e.g. cut off the African rainforest. We have to assume that the competent authorities, on the basis of the laws which the government has adopted, authorize it beforehand or simply tolerate it. Of course, there’s illegal wilderness. But the authorities can decide whether they use much or little armed personnel to prevent this as much as possible. In addition, the protection does nothing if the animals are taken from their habitat. Your proposal, for example, to subject products that are harmful to climate or environment from abroad to a high tax, sounds good. However, we are thereby damaging the economies of the producer countries whose export earnings are suffering. A vicious circle.
It is absolutely to be affirmed JEDER, every nation, every human being is part of our all habitats and nations should also pay attention to environmental and species protection from the outset and not only make mistakes that the industrial nations are beginning to recognize today as such.
So act immediately and not regret later than that will be much more expensive.
To another topic, the private trade in CO2 contingents: I think this is a bad mistake. We must finally understand that it does not make any difference, who produces CO2 and you cannot sell the responsibility for it. Emission trading has only one purpose to fill the pockets of money
The preservation of these species is also important for states. Not only for intangible reasons. They are magnets for tourism They represent a capital of these countries. If she dies, it’s over.
Of course, Rangers must be armed. The wilderers are also. How else should they enforce compliance with the protection rules for nasal horns, elephants, tigers etc. By the way, there are actually cases in which wilderers have virtually changed the pages and are now active for the state as wilderers. Have you seen a documentary about this topic? Without the protection of wild animals, these animals would have long been extinct at the prices which, for example, are paid in China for parts of them, especially for use in Chinese medicine. It is not only about survival but also about the big money and that is being organized. The state must have officials who enforce the law, that is not different in these countries than in Germany. And they must be equipped according to the danger of their order.
That’s the solution? Send more armed personnel?
That would be the only solution if the wilderers, got this job.
The wilderness is not the real problem, but only a symptom of a sick society. If you come with more rules and weapons (manage) and take the basis for survival (your income), then the whole problem will increase rather than decrease.
It is true and a very good idea to bring this as a possible and also existing economic factor closer. If they smell money, they’ll be there, sigh.
Still have a nice weekend and not despair because there are so many debes, LG. 🙂
Hi, yes, this is a KARDINALSFEHLER. Conservative parties only see “ui, costs what”. But not “this is an industry that can bring real upswing and prosperity. And climate protection, resource protection means directly less dependency on BEDENKAL sources. But regardless of… It is absolutely essential to be able to live in appropriate quality at all. And AfD, CS/DU, FDP are completely next to it. Let’s say that. Core competency of the Red and Left is also not straight
Thank you for your comment, very kind. Our (Merkel) are still of the opinion that we must be able to afford environmental protection, LG:-)
In the meantime, half of the Chinese are living at European level. And yes, the other half, still really poor today, will follow.
China had a serious CO2 boost 10 years ago. Why? In short, lack of alternatives, on coal. And therefore has a CO2 release per person such as Central Europe.
But by now, China is making a lot different. It continues to grow, CO2 does not, as in this country.
Only that China goes the way to quickly establish alternatives very aggressively. Why? So this is also important, but compared to DIRECTORS exposure to toxic exhaust gases and fine dust the harmless problem. If you don’t see the sun on hot cloudless summer days without desert dust… And the problem was, is still partial, a much more pressing problem. China therefore does not indulge in the European pattern, first fully develop, then change, but, during that time, transforms it into development
If someone is to choose another one; then at most only if he actually acts better himself.
You can’t drink wine and force the other water. The noble drinks water itself and acts as a model.
I am in principle against any form of compulsion. But one could justify it if the dictator himself acts better than he expects from others.
I fully agree with the middle part of your answer. I am very sensitive to the subject of dictatorship. The formation of will must always proceed democratically from its origin from the majority of the electoral people. And this must force the minority its will. Of course, taking into account the fundamental rights of the individual. And we can’t impose anything on other countries. We can only be a model as you say right. And they support doing the right thing.