Page 127 [127]
What can I hope for (from politics)? 1125
— the population explosion which took place in the impoverished
countries following the collapse of the traditional order of social
reproduction;
— the degradation of the natural resources that ensured a living: the
lack of precipitation and desertification caused by climate change, soil
erosion, deforestation and decreasing biodiversity, among other things;
— finally, the spread of violence, terrorism and wars in the poverty¬
stricken areas.
Every single one of these is connected to the consequences of the
industrial revolution, the aggressive expansion of Western civilisation
and the current world order, of which we are the participants and
beneficiaries. That this concerns us is therefore indisputable.
The consequences are nevertheless not self-evident. ‘The egalitarian
position, formulated perhaps for the first time by Australian philosopher
Peter Singer, recognises only individuals and demands the removal of
the pre-existing, unjustifiable differences among them: the fair
distribution of goods and burdens, without regard to anything else."
However, not only is this practically unrealisable; it is also worrying at
the theoretical level. There is not always an injustice behind the
inequalities developed throughout history. Moreover, the history of
humanity is, whether one likes it or not, one of wars of conquest. Their
consequences cannot be undone and cannot be laid at the door of the
generation alive today. Inequalities also arise from some cultures using
their resources more wisely and resourcefully than others. The most
important resource is naturally human knowledge itself. Since the
beginning of civilisation (and even before), conquerors have used the
advantages arising from their knowledge to the detriment of the
vanquished, which was hardly a “just” way of proceeding on their part.
But what could the “original state” be, compared to which the measure
of just compensation could be established today? Finally, even if we were
to accept the principle of a global sharing of burdens, how should we
distribute the burdens among the more prosperous nations, who took
part and take part in colonisation, the burdening of the environment
and the destruction of nature to significantly varying degrees? And why
nations, since our original assumption was that we do not differentiate
between individuals according to their national affiliation?!
116 Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.3. 1972.
"7 | borrowed most of my argumentation from the article of Margaret Moore, though she
takes a much more nuanced approach to the question. Margaret Moore: Natural Resources,