The ethics of regen
This is the 0.101, so let's start a conversation and see where this thing goes
Often I have conversations with folks where there’s an attempt to ‘box me in’.
There are many ways we could tackle this, ranging from the profoundly esoteric through to the grossly oversimplified. For now, let me just say that labels, brands, constructs etc. are part of us attempting to make sense of the world. There are massively impacted by culture and our biopsychosocial conditioning.
At times these labels may be helpful (enabling action in an infinite sea of interdependent variables). At times they may be harmful (resulting in reductionist thinking and action, effectively externalising much of what matters, potentially leading to irreparable harms… Yup!). Most often the helpful to harmful is like a multi-coloured lava lamp shifting around in four dimensional space (do with that what you will. I hope some of the features of this comment are valued).
Before diving into the topic of the post directly (the ethics of regeneration, or rather, the connections between the two concepts. I’ll have to explore this complex value system over time.), let’s frame the conversation.
As always, this is a time boxed thing. I’ve been dealing with the typical variability of life. I’ve struggled to find any time for deep work. This is something I value, so I’m working to shift things around to create more space for deeper philosophical work.
Right now I’m at a beautiful roastery in Eltham, (Victoria, Australia). I’ll give myself 60 mins or so, see where I get to, then move onto the next thing (house hunting and a nature walk).
Onwards!
Transdisciplinary, by design (and necessity)
I wrote about this late last year. The gist is that I said, “F:>k being boxed in. I’m going to own the diversity of my whole being and lean into the inherently complex and transdisciplinary nature of my work.”
This came off the back of years dealing with the always evolving fractal attempting to fit neatly into the square. In my opinion, this is fighting a losing battle. It ain’t worth it.
Through the process of dealing with these tensions - values, interests, mental models etc. - I’ve gotten to the point where I am personally comfortable not having a label (even though I ended up defining a label. Read the linked post above to get at why I did that). This can be somewhat confusing for folks (“Why do I think you’re supposed to be focusing on sociotechnology ethics, yet I always head you talking about ecological economics, or degrowth, or food systems or whatever it is?”). I’d like to take radical responsibility for this, which practically translates to investing in progressive disclosure. By this I mean, I’d like to start deliberately connecting the dots in a more public setting. I probably haven’t done a good job of this, so please consider this my most basic attempt to begin that life long process.
How are ethics and regeneration related?
Let’s start by defining terms.
Ethics and morals have a similar etymology. They derive from different languages and cultural contexts, but sort of mean the same thing. Even though this is the case, many philosophers will draw a distinction between the two terms.
Morality typically describes the rules or boundaries governing a given society or culture's behaviours. It's about drawing the line between 'good and evil' (old school framing there, but bare with me). These rules are often expressed as statements about what we ought to do. Together, moral rules form a moral code.
Ethics is the deliberative, reflective process that draws on a given society or cultures 'moral code' to help assess which of the available choices and actions might be the most morally 'good' and 'right' in a given situation.
A helpful way to think about the two ideas is that we live in a world that is messy, complex and hard to predict. Our moral code helps describe our first-order beliefs. These are like rules of thumb that are known, integrated into how we live and fairly easy to use in terms of how they guide our actions. Ethics is the second-order reflection of our first-order beliefs. By engaging in this process of reflection, we can potentially improve, expand on or refine our beliefs in some meaningful way. This process is usually a little slow and challenging.
The field of 'Moral Philosophy' (which sometimes fits into Axiology, other times the two are somewhat thought of as being distinct, yet related… Guess what, philosophers can’t quite agree. Big surprise!) is typically broken down into three main areas:
Normative Ethics: The field of study that seeks to ground our moral beliefs and inform how we think about right versus wrong, good versus evil etc.
Metaethics: The field of study that focuses on what morality itself is.
Applied Ethics: The field of study that explores the use of moral theories in real-world, practical settings.
The three big normative theories are:
Consequentialism
Deontology
Virtue Ethics
Many other theories exist, including Teleology, Ethical Egosism, Contractualism, Libertarianism, Principlism and Existentialism.
Consequentialism suggests that outcomes or consequences are the thing that morally matters. For a consequentialist, a choice or action is morally good when it produces the most net good, which can be thought of and measured in different ways. Hedons are typically the units of 'good'. Dolors are typically the units of 'bad'.
Deontology suggests that the reason for a choice or action is what matters. We ought to act out of duty. Acting out of duty, regardless of the consequences, determines the moral worthiness of the act itself. In addition, these rules guiding our action/s should be universalisable, meaning they should apply to everyone in every situation.
Virtue Ethics suggests that we should make moral decisions based on how they shape our character as people. The idea here is that virtuous choices are more likely to reinforce virtuous characteristics. For vices, the same reinforcement is thought to be true.
Each of these big normative theories have strengths and weaknesses. They've been hotly debated over the years and together inform the way that we commonly think about morality in society.
Metaethics is a field that few people outside of the professional philosophy community will think about often. There are, however, three ideas that are worth understanding:
Realism
Relativism
Pluralism
Moral realism suggests that morality is objective and true. It comes in many shapes and forms. Relativism proposes the opposite. It suggests that culture, context and many other factors determine what is right and what is wrong. It too comes in many shapes and forms. Pluralism is a little like the sensible center (not for the sake of keeping the peace, but as recognition of how we live across time, cultures and contexts), seeking to understand, appreciate and draw from many moral theories and positions. It's about taking the strengths and using them, whilst critically assessing and seeking to avoid many of the shortcomings associated with any specific theory.
I approach much of work from a pluralistic perspective. I do this out of recognition and respect for the various values that may differ by culture or context. This does not mean that anything goes. Quite the opposite. I can and do critically analyse a given situation based on the information available, assess it relative to a set of principles that bring the strengths of different theories into a process of ethical reflection (the process of doing 'practical ethics'). I then suggest possible actions based on what the process itself helps determine might be most good and right in a specific situation.
Okay, a mouthful.
How about regeneration?
Regeneration has biological and ecological meanings. The basic idea is now applied to many different context, from the broad field / discipline of design through to specific areas like agriculture or leadership.
Basically here we are referring to the capacity a complex adaptive system has to take resources and use them to build back something that has been lost (or perhaps more accurately, used in a specific way).
The specific context within which this is relevant is ecological and at the level of the biosphere or planetary boundaries.
So when I refer to regeneration, I’m referring to the capacity of earth’s life giving systems to grow more of the stuff that gets ‘taken away’ (super scientific parlance here y’all!).
And even more specifically, what we should be interested in here is net regeneration.
Why?
Because we are operating WAY beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. We need to bring the totality of humanities activities back within planetary boundaries through an assortment of means. And we seemingly need to do so quite quickly to avoid some potentially terrible consequences for many.
This is not sensationalism. This is grounded in the best available balance of evidence.
Here’s a great keynote covering some of this.
So, what we’re basically saying here is that ethics is the deliberative process we execute to make decisions about what is good and what is right. Regeneration is the capacity for biospheric ‘healing’ (I’m hoping the anthropomorphisation is useful here).
Meaning:
Humans (and all other species) rely on the health of biospheric systems and subsystems
The totality of human activities are potentially destroying the long term habitability of biospheric systems for our species and many others
We ought to value the habitability of biospheric systems, given we literally rely on these systems for EVERYTHING
Therefore…
Net regeneration is a moral imperative.
So, for someone doing work on ‘value systems’, how they impact the sociotechnical systems we design, how those sociotechnical systems impact us etc. I see it as utterly illogical to avoid a focus on regeneration. In addition, given the possible ways in which we could intervene in order to net regenerate, I see it as illogical not to very seriously question the ideology of growthism, and thus the myriad contributions proposed in the degrowth scholarship.
This has to go beyond dogma. This work has to be grounded in a deep care for that which really matters. And, looking at this with just a sprinkle of wisdom, it’s hard to suggest that what matters most is GDP.
The love we feel and give. The taste of ripe, locally fruit enjoyed with a friend in the fading sun of a beautiful afternoon. The laughter of our children as we vigorously and ridiculously play with them. The joy we feel for and with them through that process.
This, and so much more, is what matters qualitatively. These are the experiences we look back on that brings us joy. This is what we want more of.
Now, none of this is to suggest that materiality means nothing. We need to value, and work towards, a world where we have what we need to live healthy and genuinely dignified lives. We need to create systems that achieve this for everyone.
All of this is going to require radical change. I cannot see how we shy away from that.
Anyways, this is the start of the conversation. This is my attempt to briefly summarise why a Sociotechnology Ethicist focuses intently on subjects, topics and focus areas that seem like they’re ‘left of field’. They are not. Everything is interconnected and interdependent, regardless of whether we can ‘accurately measure’ such connections or not.
I’ll sign off for now. I look forward to discussing this further.