Bioethics is now a subject so rich in complexity and debate that it boasts numerous academic courses and journals around the world in its name. By comparison, environmental ethics is still in its infancy, but we can bet with near certainty that it is a subject that is going to flourish in coming years. The more and more we concern ourselves with environmental issues, then the more we are going to have to make some very difficult decisions. Rare is an environmental problem that is solved with one, unambiguous solution.
The area of energy supply is already vexing many of us, of course. Should we continue down the path to nuclear power, when we don't even have a clear strategy for dealing with the waste from our first foray into the technology? Should we invest in biofuels, when we already know that it will place pressures on global food supplies as well as lead to increased deforestation? Should we build tidal barrages, when they could disrupt estuary wildlife? Do wind farms kill too many birds? Do dams generating "carbon free" hydro power cause irreparable damage upstream?
Much of the time, these debating points boil down to good old anthropocentrism - whether our species' needs are greater than those of others that share this planet. And there's no prize for guessing who the "winner" normally turns out to be. But a story in today's Guardian points to where the subject of environmental ethics might be headed now that we are at last placing a bit more attention on the wellbeing of other species.
Alok Jha reports on a major EU-funded study that says that in order to stop further depleting fish stocks we might need to start growing genetically modified plants which produce omega-3 fish oils that can then be fed to livestock. This would, says the study, help us meet our public-health goals - a daily intake of about 450mg of omega-3 oils protects against cardiovascular diseases, for example - without needing to trawl the seas for oily fish such as mackerel, tuna and salmon as we could instead consume these oils via artificially enriched meats or dairy products. (Incidentally, it's a little known fact that seals are killed in Canada for their omega-3 rich oils, too. Look out for "marine oil" on the labels of omega-3 capsules as a potential source.)
But where does this leave the average environmentalist? Should their instinct be to shun genetically modified technology, without exception? Or is it to protect global fish stocks? And should Western-oriented health concerns - was anyone popping omega-3 pills a decade or more ago? - even be forcing us to make these knotty decisions anyway? Furthermore, what other dilemmas will the field of environmental ethics throw up for us to confront next?
Welcome to the future.
