Friday, May 23, 2014

Toward an Ethics of Sustainability

Sustainability, Ethics and GHSI Tyranny

"Be harmless..." ("Do no harm.") has always been the first rule of humane ethics. Does it remain a valid starting point? Yes, to be either accepted or denied as the first point in the argument. I invite the readers to reach their own conclusions and join in this discussion of the Ethics of Sustainability.

IMHO, any ethical stance starts with a recognition of individual responsibility for individual actions, especially when that human action is taken "on behalf of" corporate fictions, such as a public agency, a business entity, a non-governmental organization or whatever. The collective fictions have no ethics apart from the ethical -- or unethical -- actions of the actual humans who act "on behalf of" these fictions.

It is not the "Majesty of the State" that depresses the button that sends the drone exploding into the wrong wedding party... It is one fallible individual in a darkened room, thousands of miles from the mayhem -- an individual who has separated him or herself from consciously and conscientiously chosen human action.

But that is, of course, the extreme example. Closer to home are simpler ethical decisions, many of these revolving around issues involving sustainability. Example: how carefully should I attend to reusing, re-purposing and recycling the garbage my lifestyle generates?

What is "sustainability?"
  1. (economics) ability to be sustained, without causing problems such as inflation
  2. (ecology) (of economic development, energy sources, etc) ability to be maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage*
While a rather straight-forward concept, akin to, if not "making a profit" at least "not making a loss" the idea of "sustainability" has become a political rallying cry for those who seek a restrained and restricted future for greatly reduced humanity -- in the name of "sustaining" a pre-industrial natural order that has been gone for centuries.

Or, as one of our sustainability mentors, Fr. Godfrey tells us, humanitarian projects need to be done "with passion, perfection and profitability..."**

If the globalist elite's plan to "sustain" nature requires the early deaths of 90% of all humans alive right now, we have a clear example of unethical "sustainability." Mega-death is not conducive to sustaining life! To believe otherwise is to wander into the nightmare of psychopathology.

I do not exaggerate! Take, for example, the Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) -- one of those "public/private partnerships" beloved of the globalist elite. This UN sponsored agency seeks to prevent pandemic disease by reducing the human population, as the most cost-effective means to that end. See:

This is, of course, quite mad!

In this GHSI initiative we see the true (sic) moral attitude of the globalist elite. We see the economics not of the Misean Market, seeking to satisfy consumer demand, but rather of Hitler's Economics Minister Speer who oversaw the Nazi State devouring the accumulated wealth of conquered Europe. Like the Roman Imperial State, the globalist elite are nothing but violent looters.

We, the human population, in the expressed view of the globalist elite,*** are viewed as chattel to be disposed of as the elite finds convenient and economical.

Another catch-word for this hideous process is "Agenda 21" - the globalist depopulation agenda.

True ethics seeks to sustain humanity on this, our home world, while addressing social problems with natural solutions. 

For example, contrary to GHSI, the best natural solution for pandemics is better nutrition and natural remedies like Nano Silver (see: not genomicide engendered by the technologies of death: GMOs, drug/vaccine toxins, "phude" toxins, radiation and geo-engineering!

Thus, we seek an ethics of sustainability that recognizes the primacy of the individual and that person's inalienable rights. This is, of course, the opposite of collective claims to restrict, restrain and reduce individual choice.

As autonomous, independent human actors we have a choice. We can accept the myth that to sustain this planet's ecosystem in a particular configuration, the elite must be allowed to destroy humanity, or we can insist on our prior right to live in a world that allows freedom of action, so long as one does no harm to the equal rights of others.

As the great 20th Century praxiologist, L. von Mises taught, "All human action is predicated on dissatisfaction..." (see: We can achieve a free and sustainable world.
Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law. 
The elucidation and the categorical and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.****
The moral choices remain as stark today as they were just after WWII when Mises penned these conclusions.

We live in a lawful Universe where the human mind can understand means and ends. When we make choices among means to attain ends, those choices are further restrained by the imperative that we each individually act ethically, for that is the only way we can live in an ethical society.

*** See Dr. Rima's video on the Globalist Agenda:

No comments: