Philosophy and the Environment.

Since the growth of Industrial culture and the industrial age which generally includes the mass production of plastics, construction materials and reliance on fossil fuels we have seen a great increase in pollution throughout the world. Although nature can also be destructive and emit similar chemicals in to the air and streams around us it is prudent and constitutes the most basic philosophy to consider the benefits and dangers of industrial technology.

Nobody really doubts that there are harmful chemicals in the environment these days although there is disagreement as to severity and extent.

As good philosophical method begins with a description of the state of affairs we can start then with the environmental scene around us. The philosopher asks what the world of industry is like then really.

The Contract of sustainability.

The contract of sustainability is an agreement between the environment and the individual life forms. The environment provides shelter, sustenance, medicine, and all of the things we find necessary for survival. Conditions on the planet are variable and sometimes there are lacks and sometimes there are bounties.

The contract is simple. In return for an environment that provides for our requirements, we mange the environment respectfully and thoughtfully. The contract is explicitly important for humans due to our recent technological progress.

Basic elements of the contract concern:

1. Bio chemical events, resources and management.
2. Treatment of animals individually and at the specie level.
3. Care for the natural land formations.

Common themes of the contract are

1. Biodiversity.
2. Animal/vegetable consumption.
3. Environmental Impact: beneficial and damaging

Of the world cultures the contract is well established traditionally yet industrial culture often runs into difficulty even on simple principles.

Economic structures affect the perception of role of the contract of sustainability. Considering economics is a type of model of the environment it is important to recognise clearly the importance of environmental stability and sustainability.

The advancement of the sciences might suggest that the contract is somewhat vague and imaginary. Rather it is the contract that permits science to take place.

Generally speaking the key is balance and moderation and this is generally the classical philosophical position.

Examples of Open and Closed systems in human institutions.

The street is an open space. You can walk there and do business there and you are generally not interfered with. Subject to the culture there are certain things you can do and cannot do, but basically the street is an open public space. A street in a corporate campus is a closed space. You cannot just walk in there, start playing the guitar under a tree. Well, even if nobody stops you at any time a security guard can appear and send you on your way. In other words even if it appears to be accessible, the law of property ownership concerns the right to close off certain spaces. The English family home is a closed space for example.

The public hospital is a mixture of open and closed space. Anyone can walk in looking fort treatment, but you can’t just walk around anywhere smoking and coughing on everybody.

And so, of interest to the philosopher is what the open and closed spaces are, and why they are open or closed. It is not the role of open philosophy to argue that all things should be open. This would be as ridiculous as forcing the rosebuds open in midwinter demanding that they would flower. Rather it is the open philosophy which enquires into the state of the rosebud. To observe it as it opens to the summer. And it is an open philosophy that knows when to be open and when to be closed.

To close off public resources to the public, and to dispense them among the minority elite by way of trickery and deceit is contrary to the open philosophy. Like wise, to open up private homes to the general public is not at all the nature of an open philosophy.

Things open and close by their nature.

An open philosophy: introduction

So what exactly is open philosophy? Well, first let’s consider the age we live in. It is one of particular technological excellence in the fields of transport, computing, design and communications. Indeed it is from the world of computing that the open methodology perhaps comes.

During the late nineteen seventies and early eighties the advancements in microprocessor technology and thus the proliferation of computing machines meant an explosion in the nature of the computer languages from just a few, understood by a small group of unusual people, to a huge variety of languages that today permeates society and culture to the extent that nearly every public building in the modern world has code running some element of the offices whether in the form of word processors and printers to more advanced building systems. Although computers are not quite yet every where they are omnipresent and have a fundamental role in the modern world.

It is the nature of this intelligent code that concerns us here and the legal challenge that presents itself everyday to the users and developers of the code. The legal challenge concerns intellectual property rights and whether or not any given code may be copied, altered or otherwise used to help us get through this life. In other words the source code of any given program is either freely available or its use restricted. In other words code is either open source or closed source.

Leaving for a moment the debate, we have here a very modern philosophical matter. That matter is whether we can think in certain ways or not. To put it simply, language is the engine of thinking. It is the very medium of thought and communication. This is important because computer languages and their programs (particular expressions within the languages) represent a major element in the technological future of the galaxy and all that dwells within it.

While this is all of great interest to the thinking individual, or, the philosopher, we must return to the point. Taking as a metaphor the open source/closed source copyright status we can consider too, the endeavours of thinking people as being open or closed. Open to the cooperation and sharing of societies resources and responsibilities or closed to them. Open to the ideas of others or closed to them.

In this way, part thought experiment/part lived experience, we can philosophise on the nature of being in the world as humans.

Now we have arrived at the central theme of the book: Whether the philosopher considers the love of wisdom to be an open or a closed affair.