The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is not big on the talk shows these days but it is a concept that has been around for a long while and can actually be found in all the beliefs of the great religions of the world. A few examples ”“ (Hinduism) “Never do to others what would pain you.” (Judaism) “What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor.” And so on.
This fundamental concept can also be found in the powerful work of Immanuel Kant, hardly your standard believer in an established religion but his “categorical imperative” is fundamental to basic philosophical thought. In somewhat archaic language, it goes like this ”“ “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Unsustainable level
Lest you think the Golden Rule in any form should be consigned to the dustbin of history it seems to be reemerging in more contemporary form in the sustainability movement. Driven by environmentalists, futurists and a host of larger thinkers, it is summarized this way ”“ “Do unto future generations as you would have them do unto you.”
Here is where the discussion gets decidedly uncomfortable for almost all of us. To make these concepts hard to ignore just imagine if everyone did as you are doing in terms of use of resources, your house, your car, your belongings.
That”™s an example of the categorical imperative in action. But to test this principle on the basis of an entire country”™s behavior consider this, the U.S. comprises only 5 percent of the world”™s population yet consumes 25 percent of its natural resources. It is now being emulated by China, bent on becoming a developed nation, meaning a heavy user of the world”™s resources. China is not yet our equal in consumerism but well on its way. In other words, if the 6 billion people now on the Earth used resources at the rate the U.S. does we would need two or three more Earths”™ resources to make it happen. It is clear we are living at a totally unsustainable level, according to Kant”™s principle, that is.
But the real moral dilemma consuming this nation is the conflict between the desperation to find replacements for fossil fuels to power this energy-intensive economy and the need to preserve what”™s left of our distressed environment and diminishing resources, in other words, the natural resources required to maintain life on this planet.
Â
An epic drama
The conflict brewing over drilling in the Marcellus Shale may be the real test of how we value or even comprehend what is at stake in drilling in a watershed and what the impact may be on future generations. First, the Marcellus Shale is located 6,000 feet below Pennsylvania, New York and portions of the southern Appalachian states. Drilling for natural gas in this region has been on the drawing board for some time but only recently has the potential for truly serious impact on the public. Incredibly, Congress removed it from oversight by the Clean Water Act in 2005.
Â
This epic drama is comprised of these players: energy companies eager for new opportunities for profit; New York state, desperate for more tax revenues at any cost; federal government with similar concerns as well as the need to avoid being responsible for lowering the American living standard because of unaffordable petroleum; Catskill landowners anxious to make a buck; and finally, residents of Westchester County and New York City whose drinking water in the New York City watershed could be endangered.
Here are the issues: The dominant problem with gas drilling is the process known as fracturing, or “fracking,” in which fresh water, laden with chemicals is forced into the rock formations allowing the real possibilities that the water can find its way into aquifers and reservoirs near the surface. More recently it has been discovered that the polluted water, after being used in fracking operations, is radioactive.
But the damage is not only underground. In New York state 3,000 to 6,000 mines would require extensive land-clearing and the imposition of millions of truck trips to service the activities of the mines ”“ this in countless pristine environments.
To summarize ”“ this drama is only the latest in the ongoing saga of the U.S. attempting to hold back the inevitable and caring little about the irreversible damage done on the way. Fresh water is not replaceable. Cleaning it up is simply not an option. Is it finally time to take seriously what it means to be sustainable?
Surviving the Future explores a wide range of subjects to assist businesses in adapting to a new energy age. Maureen Morgan, a transit advocate, is on the board of Federated Conservationists of Westchester. Reach her at maureenmorgan10@verizon.net.
