Jeff wrote:
> In Mollison's model of the Pc everything is viewed from a design
> perspective. Ethics is just one factor that impacts design. Others
> are energy, site characteristics, culture, economics, etc. This
> says ethics is just another trade off which needs to be balanced.
> I'm not comfortable with this viewpoint.
I have trouble with this, too. I guess I assumed that the ethics would
underlie all other aspects, but I think your idea reflects the situation
better. With ethics as "just another trade off which needs to be balanced"
it is easily compromised or lost all together. And a compromised ethic is
none at all.
> If we assume the ethics are included then we
> stop being critical of our actions. Also, ethics need to be
> built into our objectives and can't be handled completely by
> design. We may be using Pc design techniques to create an
> unethical results.
I'm sure this is happening. The ethics are often an afterthought. (What
shall we do with this left over fruit? We could leave this hard to work
land for the wildlife.) And ethics can be eliminated if it is "just
another trade off." I don't understand "ethics needing to be built into
our objectives" and "ethics being handled by design." Aren't ethics always
built into objectives? And aren't designs a subset of objectives and
objectives a subset of ethics, in that our obectives and actions always
illustrate our ethics? Perhaps it isn't having the wrong objective or
design, but having the wrong ethic. The problem is adopting new ethics
without the necessary work to make them a part of oneself. One only 'has'
an ethic when it is reflected in all (most) of what one does. "Actions
speak louder than words."
> Don't most designs have provisions for feedback. We adjust
> and improve constantly. The same might fit ethics. We need
> to include their review and growth in our designs and views
> of the world.
> Rather than a police effort, we could propose Pc grow to
> include ethics specific actions. Move it from a passive
> assumed state to active enquiry state. This way everyone
> would police themselves.
I agree that it is necessary to review our actions to see how they fit, or
don't, our ethics, but as I said earlier, I also think that truely held
ethics will permiate what you do. Therefore, evaluating your true ethics
based on what you acutally do may be even more useful. If your current
ethics are not what you want them to be, then the problem is different than
if your actions do not follow your ethics. The distinction is crutial in
my opinion. It is much easier to change a design than an ethic.
> Thinking about why ethics are ignored gave me an idea. How
> do we apply ethic to Pc design efforts without an ethical
> future vision?
I don't usually find Pc lacking for ethical future vision. Many
practitioners are very idealistic and foward looking. However, the problem
seems to be that the ethics are not always consistently applied, not all
actions lead toward the vision held. So, there may be a disconnect between
ones stated ethics and visions and actually held ethics and beliefs.
> The idea that we can
> have cooperation and not competition doesn't fit my thinking. We
> are always in a state of competition and at the same time we are
> cooperating. We care for the earth and that is balanced by care
> for people. Sometimes care of people is not earth friendly and
> sometimes care of earth impacts people.
> My conclusion is, the concept of balance needs to be introduced
> so a realistic model of ethic can be built.
I suppose competition always exisits from one point of view. But somehow I
feel competition assumes greed or lack of abundance. When there is plenty
for all things, is there still competition? Is it possible to have plenty
for all? I always saw one of the goals of Pc was to provide such an
abundance that "loss" to insects, animals, climate extremes, etc. would
still leave plenty to compost after we have had our fill. Again, this
would be an ideal to strive for; any less would mean some degree of
competition. And I agree, the concepts of competition and balance need to
go hand in hand.
In conculsion I think the world would be a better place if we recoginzed
that our ethics are shown by what we do, not by what we think or say, and
then live accordingly. Most of the worst characteristics of humans are
tolerable only through the veil of denial of true motivations and deeply
held beliefs.
Eric:
