Abstract
The guiding thesis for this book is that out of the narrative crisis created by the conflicting optimistic and pessimistic philosophies of technology, a new narrative of sustainability is emerging. In this final chapter I argue that the recent development of planetary boundary theory marks a major advance in fulfilling the duty of comparative futurology, and that it provides a context for evaluating genetic engineering in agriculture. In very broad terms, these three elements, an ethics of responsibility, planetary boundary theory, and a pragmatic philosophy of technology, can make significant contributions in building a narrative of sustainability. The chapter concludes by placing advances in agricultural biotechnology within the context of a precautionary ethics and comparative futurology, as exemplified by planetary boundary theory. Given that the earth’s population is predicted to grow to more than 10 billion people over the next century while global environmental problems like climate change intensify, it seems difficult to imagine we can fulfill our duties to future generations without innovations like genetic engineering in agriculture. However, if emerging technologies are going to help create a more just and sustainable future, we must move beyond the conflict between the progressive and pessimistic narratives and continued to construct a narrative of sustainability.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As was pointed out earlier, one interpretation of the PP is as a principle of applied ethics that morally requires shifting the burden of proof from those who wish to protect human health and the environment to prove that an activity or technology is dangerous, to those who wish to promote an activity or technology to show that it is safe. However, in their analysis of the PP, van den Belt and Gremmen conclude that, on closer examination, “ethical consideration of a more specific character may enter into the balancing of risks and benefits and tilt the outcome one direction or the other” (van den Belt and Gremmen 2002). In other words, in some situations and contexts the application of the PP to shift the burden of proof to those who are promoting an activity may be appropriate, all things considered. However, in other contexts and situations the burden should shift to those who oppose an activity—again, when and how to apply the PP requires good judgment or practical wisdom.
Andrew Sterling seems to recognize this in his analysis of the PP. He concludes his analysis by saying that “the main contributions of [precautionary] approaches are to encourage more robust methods in appraisal, make value judgments more explicit, and enhance qualities of deliberation” (Sterling 2016, 17). The point to draw from these various comments is that the application of the PP requires a rich context that includes different kinds of knowledge—scientific, ethical, social, political, and so on—combined with good judgment, political prudence or practical wisdom. Sweeping applications of the PP to shift the burden of proof to the developers of GE organisms in all cases fails to appreciate the role GE might play in the larger task of needing to rapidly transform agricultural practices and keep humanity within safe operating boundaries of the planet.
References
Comstock, G. 2000. Precautionary principle coherent? Agbioworld. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=134. Accessed 20 July 2017.
Cornell, S. 2015. Planetary boundaries – Some questions and answers. Stockholm Resilience. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.3110ee8c1495db744326bf5/1459560166869/Planetary+Boundaries+Q+and+A+Jan+2015update.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2017.
Easterbrook, G. 1997. Forgotten benefactor of humanity. Atlantic Monthly 279 (1). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/01/forgotten-benefactor-of-humanity/306101/. Accessed 20 Mar 2017.
Ehrlich, P. 1968. The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.
Feenberg, A. 1999. Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
Haberman, C. (2015) The unrealized horrors of population explosion. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html. Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
Hardin, G. 1974. Lifeboat Ethics. Bioscience 24 (10): 561–568.
Jasanoff, S. 2016. The ethics of invention, technology and the human future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
———. 2005. Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 183–198. London/New York: Zed Books.
Jonas H. 1985. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. (trans: Jonas H. and Herr D). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens. 1972. The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L. 2002. A synopsis: The limits to growth: A 30-year update. The Donella Meadows Project. http://donellameadows.org/archives/a-synopsis-limits-to-growth-the-30-year-update/. Accessed 4 Apr 2017.
Oreskes, N., and E. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C.A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P.K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R.W. Corell, V.J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J.A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (24): 472–475.
Rockström, J., and M. Klum. 2015. Big world, small planet. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Salamander, R. 2008. Foreword. In Memoirs: Hans Jonas. ed. Wiese C. Trans. Krishna Winston, , vi–xiv. Waltham: Brandies University Press.
Sandin, P., M. Peterson, S.O. Hansson, C. Rudén, and A. Juthe. 2002. Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research 5 (4): 287–299.
Spreng, D., G. Marland, and A.M. Weinberg. 2007. CO2 capture and storage: Another Faustian bargain? Energy Policy 35 (2): 850–854.
Steffen, W., Å. Persson, L. Deutsch, J. Zalasiewicz, M. Williams, K. Richardson, C. Crumley, P. Crutzen, C. Folke, L. Gordon, M. Molina, V. Ramanathan, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, H. Joachim Schellnhuber, and U. Svedin. 2011. The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 40 (7): 739–761.
Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S.R. Carpenter, W. De Vries, C.A. De Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G.M. Mace, L.M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (736): 1259855.
Sterling, A. 2016. Precaution in the governance of technology. SPRU Working Paper Series. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-14-swps-stirling.pdf&site=25. Accessed 15 Mar 2017.
Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear, beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson P. B. 2009. Can agricultural biotechnology help the poor? The answer is yes, but with qualifications. Science Progress. http://scienceprogress.org/2009/06/ag-biotech-thompson/. Accessed 25 May 2016.
Tickner, J., Raffensperger, C., Myers, N.1999. The precautionary principle in action: A handbook. Science and Environmental Health Network. https://training.fws.gov/resources/course-resources/pesticides/Limitations%20and%20Uncertainty/handbook.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2018.
Turner, D., and L. Hartzell. 2004. The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle. Environmental Values 13 (4): 449–460.
United Nations. 1992. Report on the United Nations conference on environment and development. https://training.fws.gov/resources/courseresources/pesticides/Limitations%20and%20Uncertainty/handbook.pdfN. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
United Nations Human Rights Council. 2017. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. http://www.panuk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/United-Nations-Report-of-the-Special-Rapporteur-on-the-right-to-food.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2017.
van den Belt, H., and B. Gremmen. 2002. Between precautionary principle and “sound science”: Distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1): 103–122.
White, D., A. Rudy, and B. Gareau. 2016. Environments, natures, and social theories. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Worster, D. 2016. Shrinking the earth: The rise and decline of American abundance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, N.D. (2018). Towards a Narrative of Sustainability, Genetic Engineering, Responsibility and Technological Pragmatism. In: Food, Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96027-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96027-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96025-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96027-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)