[Session 3]"Next day, our Chinese investor was stricken with flu, cold, fever and headache. Imagine, he had already taken off his clothes and just wearing underwear, but the swimming party was cancelled. The strong roar of beach wind made his stomach rumble.In the hotel restaurant, while tasting a bowl of warm shrimp asparagus soup, the investor complained to the minister, 'The United Nations is very concerned about environmental pollution, and our country is thinking about how to get rid of pollutants.'Trying to empathize, the minister responded, 'Oh, if that so, just move them to our place. We use to live with pollutants, taking mutual advantage and friends with benefits,' Peace Lily continued her discussion with Wulandari.She then said, "The contamination of air, water, or food in such a manner as to cause real or potential harm to human health or well-being, or to damage or harm nonhuman nature without justification is called Environmental Pollution.Pollution, according to I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and M.L. Brusseau, is the accumulation and adverse affects of contaminants or pollutants on human health and welfare, and/or the environment. Contaminants can result from waste materials produced from the activity of living organisms, especially humans. However, contamination can also occur from natural processes such as arsenic dissolution from bedrock into groundwater, or air pollution from smoke that results from natural fires. Pollutants are also ubiquitous in that they can be in the solid, liquid, or gaseous state. Pollution is also produced as an indirect result of human activity. For example, fossil fuel burning increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and increases global warming. Other classes of pollutants can occur due to poor waste management or disposal, which can lead to the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in water. Another example of pollution due to human activity is accidental spillage of organics that can be toxic, such as chlorinated solvents or petroleum hydrocarbons that contaminate groundwater. Some common contaminants that find their way into the environment, with the potential to adversely affect human health and welfare.The environment plays a key role in the ultimate fate of pollutants. The environment consists of land, water, and the atmosphere. All sources of pollution are initially released or dumped into one of these phases of the environment. As pollutants interact with the environment, they undergo physical and chemical changes, and are ultimately incorporated into the environment. The environment thus acts as a continuum into which all waste materials are placed. The pollutants, in turn, obey the second law of thermodynamics: matter cannot be destroyed; it is merely converted from one form to another. Thus, taken together, the way in which substances are added to the environment, the rate at which these wastes are added, and the subsequent changes that occur determine the impact of the waste on the environment. It is important to recognize the concept of the environment as a continuum, because many physical, chemical, and biological processes occur not within one of these phases, such as the air alone, but rather at the interface between two phases such as the soil/water interface.Some pollutants, such as microbial pathogens, are entirely natural and may be present in the environment at very low concentrations. Even so, they are still capable of causing pathogenic diseases in humans or animals. Such natural microorganisms are also classified as pollutants, and their occurrence within the environment needs to be carefully controlled.The question of when harm to nature is still very much related to, once again, Ethics,As you all know, Ethics is the systematic analysis of morality. Morality, in turn, is the perceptions we have of what is right and wrong, good or bad, or just or unjust. We all live by various moral values such as truth and honesty. Some, for example, find it very easy to tell lies, while others will almost always tell the truth. If all life situations required nothing more than deciding when to tell the truth or when to lie, there would be no need for ethics. Very often, however, we find ourselves in situations when some of our moral values conflict. Do we tell our friend the truth, and risk hurting his feelings, or do we lie and be disloyal? How do we decide what to do ? Ethics makes it possible to analyze such moral conflicts, and people whose actions are governed by reflective ethical reasoning, taking into account moral values, are said to be ethical people.We generally agree among ourselves to be ethical (that is, to use reflective and rational analysis of how we ought to treat each other) because to do so resuits in a better world. If we did not bother with morality and ethics, the world would be a sorry place, indeed. Imagine living in an environment where nobody could be trusted, where everything could be stolen, and where physically hurting each other at every opportunity would be normal. While some societies on this globe might indeed be like that, we must agree that we would not want to live under such conditions. So we agree to get along and treat each other with fairness, justice, and caring, and to make laws to govern those issues of greatest import and concern.The most important point is that ethics only makes sense if we assume reciprocity—the ability of others to make rational ethical decisions. You don't lie to your friend, for example, because you don't want him or her to lie to you. To start lying to each other would destroy the caring and trust you both value. Truth-telling therefore makes sense because of the social contract we have with others, and we expect others to participate. If they do not, we do not associate with them, or if the breach of the contract is great enough, we send them to jail and remove them from society.The most important point is that ethics only makes sense if we assume reciprocity—the ability of others to make rational ethical decisions. You don't lie to your friend, for example, because you don't want him or her to lie to you. To start lying to each other would destroy the caring and trust you both value. Truth-telling therefore makes sense because of the social contract we have with others, and we expect others to participate. If they do not, we do not associate with them, or if the breach of the contract is great enough, we send them to jail and remove them from society.Much of our history of Civilizations has been characterized as exploitation, destruction, and noncaring for the environment. Why are we such a destructive species? Various arguments have been advanced to explain the roots of our environmentally destructive tendencies, including our social and economic structure, and our acceptance of technology, even religion.According to J. Jeffrey Peirce, Ruth F. Weiner, and P. Aarne Vesilind, it seems farfetched to blame our environmental problems on our religions, because religions provide Environmental Ethics.Then what about Science and Technology? It has become fashionable to blame environmental ills on increased knowledge of nature (science) and the ability to put that knowledge to work (engineering). During the industrial revolution the Luddite movement in England violently resisted the change from cottage industries to centralized factories; in the 1970s a pseudo-Luddite 'back-to-nature' movement purported to reject technology altogether. However, the adherents of this movement made considerable use of the fruits of the technology they eschewed, like used vans and buses, synthetic fabrics, and, for that matter, jobs and money.Peirce, Weiner, and Vesilind say suggest that people who blame science and technology for environmental problems forget that those who alerted us early to the environmental crisis like Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and Barry Commoner, were scientists, sounding the environmental alarm as a result of scientific observation. Had we not observed and been able to quantify phenomena like species endangerment and destruction, the effect of herbicides and pesticides on wildlife, the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, and fish kills due to water pollution, we would not even have realized what was happening to the world. Our very knowledge of nature is precisely what alerted us to the threats posed by environmental degradation.If knowledge is value-flee, is technology to blame? if so, less technologically advanced societies must have fewer environmental problems. But they do not. The Maori in New Zealand exterminated the moa, a large flightless bird; there is considerable overgrazing in Africa and on the tribal reservations in the American Southwest; the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians destroyed forests and created deserts by diverting water. Modern technology, however, not only provides water and air treatment systems, but continues to develop ways in which to use a dwindling natural resource base more conservatively. For example, efficiency of thermal electric generation has doubled since World War II, food preservation techniques stretch the world's food supply, and modern communications frequently obviate the need for energy-consuming travel, and computer use has markedly decreased the use of paper.If knowledge is value-flee, is technology to blame? if so, less technologically advanced societies must have fewer environmental problems. But they do not. The Maori in New Zealand exterminated the moa, a large flightless bird; there is considerable overgrazing in Africa and on the tribal reservations in the American Southwest; the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians destroyed forests and created deserts by diverting water. Modern technology, however, not only provides water and air treatment systems, but continues to develop ways in which to use a dwindling natural resource base more conservatively. For example, efficiency of thermal electric generation has doubled since World War II, food preservation techniques stretch the world's food supply, and modern communications frequently obviate the need for energy-consuming travel, and computer use has markedly decreased the use of paper.If technology is not to blame, does it have the 'wrong' values, or is it value-free? Is knowledge itself, without an application, right or wrong, ethical or unethical? J. Robert Oppenheimer faced this precise dilemma in his lack of enthusiasm about developing a nuclear fusion bomb. Oppenheimer considered such a weapon evil in itself. Edward Teller, usually credited with its development, considered the H-bomb itself neither good nor evil, but wished to keep it out of the hands of those with evil intent (or what he perceived to be evil intent). The developers of the atomic bomb, although defending the position that the bomb itself was value-free, nonetheless enthusiastically promoted the peaceful uses of atomic energy as a balance to their development of a weapon of destruction. The ethics of technology is so closely entwined with the ethics of the uses of that technology that the question of inherent ethical value is moot. On balance, technology can be used to both good and evil ends, depending on the ethics of the users.If technology is not to blame, does it have the 'wrong' values, or is it value-free? Is knowledge itself, without an application, right or wrong, ethical or unethical? J. Robert Oppenheimer faced this precise dilemma in his lack of enthusiasm about developing a nuclear fusion bomb. Oppenheimer considered such a weapon evil in itself. Edward Teller, usually credited with its development, considered the H-bomb itself neither good nor evil, but wished to keep it out of the hands of those with evil intent (or what he perceived to be evil intent). The developers of the atomic bomb, although defending the position that the bomb itself was value-free, nonetheless enthusiastically promoted the peaceful uses of atomic energy as a balance to their development of a weapon of destruction. The ethics of technology is so closely entwined with the ethics of the uses of that technology that the question of inherent ethical value is moot. On balance, technology can be used to both good and evil ends, depending on the ethics of the users.Assessment of the ethics of the use of any technology depends on our knowledge and understanding of that technology. For example, at this writing, scientists are investigating whether or not proximity to the electric and magnetic fields associated with electric power transmission increases cancer risk. Clearly, the ethics associated with transmission line location depends on the outcome of these investigations. Acceptance or rejection of any technology on ethical grounds must depend on an understanding of that technology.It means that if we are to reverse the trend in environmental degradation, we need to change the way we live, the way we treat each other and our nonhuman environment. Such ideas can be connected by what has become known as Environmental Ethics.Environmental ethics is a subcategory of ethics. Its definition can be approached from three historical perspectives: environmental ethics as public health, environmental ethics as conservation and preservation, and environmental ethics as caring for nonhumans. Public health has historically been associated with the supply of water to human communities. Permanent settlements and the development of agricultural skills were among the first human activities to create a cooperative social fabric. As farming efficiency increased, a division of labor became possible and communities began to build public and private structures. Water supply and wastewater drainage were among the public facilities that became necessary for human survival in communities, and the availability of water has always been a critical component of civilizations. In summary, this first form of the environmental ethic makes the destruction of resources and despoliation of our environment, unethical, because doing so, might cause other humans to suffer from diseases. Our unwillingness to clean up after ourselves is unethical because such actions could make other people sick or prevent them from being cured of disease. Because ethics involves a social contract, the rationale for the environmental ethic in this case is that we do not want to hurt other people by polluting the environment.The environmental ethic of conservation and preservation places value on nature because we want it conserved (so it can continue to provide us with resources) and preserved (so it can continue to be enjoyed by us). Environmental pollution is bad either because such pollution can be a public health concern or because such pollution can be a public nuisance, cost us money, or prevent us from enjoying nature. In the first case we want our water, air, food, and our living place not to be polluted because we do not want to get ill. In the second case we do not want to have pollution because it decreases the quality of our lives. We also do not want to destroy species because, in the first instance, these species may be useful to us in what they can provide to keep us alive longer or because, in the second sense, we enjoy having these species as our co-inhibitors.Environmental Ethics as caring for nonhuman nature tends to be related to Spiritual Environmental Ethics. Based on the rationalization for ethics, there cannot be a very strong argument for such an extension of the moral community. Because there is no reciprocity (so goes the argument), there can be no ethics. Our caring for nonhuman nature, then, cannot ever be rationally argued and defended. One possibility is that our attitudes toward other species and nonhuman nature in general is spiritual. A spiritual environmental ethic is a new paradigm for our environmental morality. Spiritual feelings toward nature are not new, of course, and we might have much to learn from the religions of our forebears. Many ancient religions are animistic, recognizing the existence of spirits within nature. These spirits do not take human form, as in the Greek, Roman, or Judaic religions.As long as we use the anthropocentric environmental ethic in making decisions concerning the environment, conflicts between people can be resolved in the timehonored fashion with compromise, understanding, and mutual interest.Perhaps, it is our social structures that are responsible for environmental degradation. According to Peirce, Weiner, and Vesilind, Garrett Hardin's 'The Tragedy of the Commons' illustrates this proposition with the following story, 'A village has a common green for the grazing of cattle, and the green is surrounded by farmhouses. Initially, each farmer has one cow, and the green can easily support the herd. Each farmer realizes, however, that if he or she gets another cow, the cost of the additional cow to the farmer is negligible because the cost of maintaining the green is shared, but the profits are the farmer's alone. So one farmer gets more cows and reaps more profits, until the common green can no longer support anyone's cows, and the system collapses.'Hardin presents this as a parable for overpopulation of the earth and consequent resource depletion. The social structure in the parable is capitalism-—the individual ownership of wealth—-and the use of that wealth to serve selfish interests. Does that mean that noncapitalist economies (the totally and partially planned economies) do a better job of environmental protection, natural resource preservation, and population control?The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 afforded the world a glimpse of the almost total absence of environmental protection in the most prominent socialist nation in the developed world. Environmental devastation in the Commonwealth of Independent States (the former USSR) is substantially more serious than in the West. In the highly structured and centrally controlled communist system, production was the single goal and environmental degradation became unimportant. Also, there was no such thing as 'public opinion,' of course, and hence nobody spoke up for the environment. When production in a centrally controlled economy is the goal, all life, including human life, is cheap and expendable.Crimes against humanity under communist regimes occurred during the 20th century, including forced deportations, massacres, torture, forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, terror, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, as well as deliberate starvation of people. Additional events included the use of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.The democratic societies of the developed world have in fact moved consciously toward environmental and resource protection more rapidly than either totally planned economies or the less developed nations. Benjamin A. Valentino finds that ethnic hatreds or discrimination, undemocratic systems of government, and dysfunctions in society play a much smaller role in mass killing and genocide than is commonly assumed. He shows that the impetus for mass killing usually originates from a relatively small group of powerful leaders and is often carried out without the active support of broader society. Mass killing, in his view, is a brutal political or military strategy designed to accomplish leaders’ most important objectives, counter threats to their power, and solve their most difficult problems.We will continue our conversation in the next session, bi 'idhnillah."Then, Peace Lily sang 'Lestari Alamku', written by Gombloh,Kuingat Ibuku dongengkan cerita[I remember my mother telling me a story]Kisah tentang Jaya Nusantara lama[The story of the old Jaya Nusantara]Tentram Kartaraharja di sana[Peaceful, fair and sufficient in there]Mengapa tanahku rawan kini?[Why is my land vulnerable now?]Bukit-bukit telanjang berdiri[The naked hills are standing]Pohon dan rumput enggan bersemi kembali[Trees and grass are reluctant to bloom again]Burung-burung pun malu bernyanyi *)[Even the birds are embarrassed to sing]
[Session 1]
