Page 127 [127]
OCR
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 povertystricken 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,
