There’s a quote by the renowned humanitarian worker Paul Farmer that reads, “the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Farmer has won awards for his dedication to medical care in countries lacking sufficient resources at the local level, and his work is most likely the basis for this idea. Some people prioritize themselves over others and other species; this prioritization has lead us to the environmental problems we face today.
If consider all lives as equally valuable, we can achieve sustainability. Environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, food waste, land degradation, and rising sea level are moral and ethical issues. To decide how to act in these cirumstances, we use mainly economics and political strategy to influence our decisions.
There is almost irony in the way ethical consideration is nonexistent when we debate environmental problems because ethics derive from living things who are the ones that will feel the effects of environmental decisions. Shouldn’t lives be at the forefront of discussion instead of economic cost-benefit analysis and international relation concerns that normally take precedent in conversation about environmental dilemmas? The prioritization almost seems to take the order of potential economic gain, political publicity, some lives, and other lives. This is where Paul Farmer’s quote connects. When living things do enter conversation, prioritization continues, hence the Farmer quote. We prioritize human life by age, race, socioeconomic status, country of inhabitance, physical capability, and other criteria. Some perceive a human ranking lowest in all these criteria to be more valuable than the most sophisticated, capable nonhuman animal. If we can change this our ranking systems, we can move closer to achieving sustainability.
If we want to sustainably harvest timber, we have to value the lives of the organisms that inhabit forests as much as we value the comfort of the people receiving the benefits of deforested land. If we want to stop global climate change, we must operate on the understanding that our homes will be threatened in the same way people can be threatened by rising sea levels and desertification. If we want to ensure we do not run out of water, we need to give present and future people, which could include ourselves, equal priority. Economics takes too much precedent in our political decisions, effectively pushing out ethics. Part of what has made this difficult is that we cannot see the direct impacts of our unsustainable habits. But, we know there are people and animals facing harsher living conditions because of our consumption habits, and though we cannot see these consequences ourselves, we should start considering them with the same priority with which we consider our own lives.
Of course science, economics, and political priorities should influence our actions in response to environmental problems. But ethics should also have equal consideration, and through ethics, people’s lives can affect policy decisions regarding sustainability. When we start considering morality and giving each life equal importance, we will reach a sustainable point faster than with the continued neglect of the equality of lives.