|
In the 16th
Century, philosopher-scientists like Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and
Johannes Kepler began devising a means of reaching an understanding of
nature through objective reasoning.
Rene Descartes systematized observation and analysis by breaking
an object down into its component parts to determine how it works.
This systematic investigation, eventually characterized as the
scientific method, made it possible to begin explaining the universe
through examination and quantification of patterns observed in nature.
Science
emphasizes physical and mechanical functions by looking at the structure
and processes of pieces, describing facts through empirical methodology
– by counting. Facts are
usually assumed to be objective references that are independent of the
observer, as opposed to values, which are subjective and indicate
relationships. Values are
criteria by which an object, person, or situation is characterized, as
opposed to a definitive, factual rendering of that object, person, or
situation. Value reflects
standards by which people make judgments or delineate relationships
between things. They can be
used in the sense of determining “what should be,” as opposed to a
technical solution that requires utilizing scientific methodology to
determine “what is.” Values
are based on what a group determines is “right” or “proper.”
They cannot be determined through empirical investigation or
rational deduction. In fact,
facts are based on human perceptions, perceptions that are shaped by
existing personal values and cannot be separated from them.
The
underlying paradigm of scientific research is based on human
perceptions; it is not value free. While
rarely acknowledged, there is a reciprocal relationship between science
and cultural values -- each has influenced the development of the other.
Science is susceptible to trends, influences, desires, and
ambitions. A scientific
choice requires value determinations, as does any action expressing a
preference, but these determinations are seldom identified in support of
decisions. Whether to use a
certain technique in the first place, and then how to employ it, are
value issues. In fact, the
rational and objective approach that originated three centuries ago
during the Enlightenment may have affected some fundamental aspects of
human society in a negative manner.
The
relegation of values into a compartment separate from facts and
observations may have contributed to a failure to incorporate the
aesthetic, ethical, and intrinsic values of the environment into
decision-making. While
objectivity works on conventional problems, the exclusion of these
values may make it less appropriate in addressing the complex
interactions that occur when social and environmental systems collide.
Scientific methodology provides a means of analyzing
environmental problems, but it also removes human feelings about nature
and leads to a belief that people can use nature without being
personally affected. So,
human domination of the world can occur without consequences to
humanity. This has given
rise to a regard for the environment as a source of resources to be
exploited, existing solely to serve human purposes.
As a result, environmental conditions continue to decline in the
face of science-based decisions.
Technology,
based on science, has led to the rise of great industrial operations.
Because right and wrong are not considered to be applicable to
science, industry has been able to injure the environment without paying
for the damage to the public “commons.”
The failure of these interests to include the costs of such
damage in their profit and loss calculations is a major problem in
applying economic theory to environmental decisions.
Still, when confronted with a difficult choice, decision makers
usually rely on the measuring capabilities of economics and relegate
moral or aesthetic values to some subordinate level of consideration, if
given consideration at all. Placing
humanity’s relationship with nature on a basis of economic
self-interest results in a disregard for much of the value of the
natural community. So,
economics cannot be used as the sole determination of land use, and
market forces cannot be relied upon to demonstrate the environment’s
most highly valued use or to reveal the correct price of its social
value. As a result, even
though the earth’s capacity to provide for growth is finite, neither
the state nor the market is providing any long-term solutions for a
worsening environmental crisis.
When
environmental problems are translated into scientific language and
methodology, a value determination is often omitted because science does
not deal with debates over values. Yet,
value choices are at the core of policy determinations.
Decision makers need to understand that problems are as much
value-based as fact-based, and that science and values must be combined
into a sustainable system through an unprecedented change in the
perspective of humanity. While
the importance of science cannot be disregarded, the fate of the
environment may rest on the values of humanity.
To restore, protect, or conserve the natural world may require
decisions based on more than a scientific analysis.
In relatively recent times, people have begun to question the
values used to rationalize the human actions that have negatively
impacted the environment. An
alternative set of values is now being expressed and is making its way
into environmental decision-making.
This set of values recognizes humanity’s deep connections to
nature and acknowledges aesthetic and ethical views.
They reflect humanity’s role as a part of nature and the need
of a healthy environment for human physical, mental, and spiritual
health.
|
