Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care by Giorgos Kallis

Author:Giorgos Kallis [Kallis, Giorgos]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
Tags: Biology, Conservation, Ecology, Environment, Non-Fiction
ISBN: 9781503611559
Google: Ih-XwgEACAAJ
Amazon: 1503611558
Publisher: Stanford University Press
Published: 2019-06-14T23:00:00+00:00

5

THE LIMITS OF LIMITS

Until now, I have been arguing for limits as part of a desire for freedom, justice, and sustainability. In this chapter I follow some loose threads in my argument that allow me to examine the limits of my own case for limits. I will be more declarative here than in previous chapters, and I would ask that readers treat my declarations as provocations rather than certainties. The sections that follow are tentative answers to questions that I have faced while defending my case for limits.

LIMITS ON WHOM?

I had much to say about limits that we can put upon ourselves, as did 1900. But I said less about the limits that one group imposes on another. Like Malthus, those with power often single out a weaker group to limit in the name of the common good—be it the poor, the foreigners, those of supposedly different skin color, or the immigrants. Such claims for limiting the Other go hand in hand with power and control, if not violence, exercised by the limiters. In other cases, it is the weak and marginalized who draw limits to stop others from encroaching on their space; think of a community that prevents a multinational corporation from logging its sacred forest. Violence here is often committed not in the name of limits but by proponents of limitless expansion against those who defend limits.1

How can we distinguish reasonable and unreasonable claims to limits? One approach might be to focus on justice and power. Do claims for limits come from a position of power or not? Limits that protect a particular interest against the common good are problematic. Are those who call for limits also willing to limit themselves in accordance with the limits they espouse?

But different groups may have different views of what constitutes the common good and who is included in it, of what is just, or who is less or more powerful. Is an indigenous group that wants to protect a sacred grove within national boundaries engaging in NIMBYism or a common-good fight? And if it is a common-good fight, what about the fights of those who dislike protected areas or rules that protect endangered species, and see themselves in confrontation with an all too powerful government? Furthermore, even limits “we” set on ourselves may still involve oppressing a minority among “us” who do not want these limits. There is no easy way out here; practices and discourses around limits can be problematic. But this is not a reason for shying away from them.

LIMITS TO WHAT?

Another problem with my account is that I have not specified what precise limits I have in mind. Liberal democracies already have laws and limits. Do I want limits to everything? Limits to good things like clean energy or education, too? If not, then limits to what?

Indeed, I have made a general case for a culture of prudence—a culture that is reflexively inclined toward limit rather than limitlessness. One area where precaution is necessary is technology. We cannot

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.