|
Biodiversity and
Bioethics
or rather
Biodiversity and the Power of Matter
Before facing the delicate relationship between Biodiversity
and Bioethics, it is necessary to focus our attention on
some terms, among these the concept of Ethics.
Ethics (the term derives from the Greek έθος, or rather "behaviour",
"character", "custom") is that branch of philosophy that
studies the objective and rational bases that allow us to
distinguish which human behaviours are good, correct, or
morally permissible, and which behaviours are held to be bad
or morally inappropriate. Ethics can also be defined as the
search for one or more criterions that allow the individual
to adequately manage their own freedom; moreover, it is a
rational consideration of the limits within which human
freedom can be extended.
But Freedom is not a static term but a term of movement;
movement in relation to something or someone. A term subject
to the verification of one’s own autonomy (physical and
spiritual) correlated to the autonomy of other beings,
things and factors. Freedom is subject, therefore, to rules,
and every rule is subject to knowledge. In conclusion, there
cannot be Ethics without Knowledge.
Let us now turn to the concept of Epistemology.
Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that regards the
conditions under which scientific knowledge can be had and
the methods used to reach such knowledge, as the etymology
of the term suggests. This derives from the union of the
Greek words "episteme" (science, certain knowledge) and
"logos" (discourse). In a narrower meaning, epistemology can
be identified with the philosophy of science, the discipline
that deals with the bases of the different scientific
disciplines.
But which are the Principles that have produced modern
Epistemology? Up until today, they have been based on the
posits of Enlightenment thinking and philosophy.
We know that the Enlightenment was born and developed
between the English revolution (1688) and the French
revolution (1789). Among other principles, it wanted to
strongly affirm, among other things, two aspects:
1) the exaltation of reason, whose field of investigation
has, however, limited itself scientifically to verifiable
reality, omitting any type of metaphysical or religious
speculation;
2) the critical re-examination of history, the refusal of
the authority of tradition considered as a source of
prejudices and endorser of institutions without a rational
base.
In order to affirm and to apply these principles,
Enlightenment Thinking behaved similarly to the cognitive
ability of our eyes. If we analyze the electromagnetic
radiation spectrum, we realize that we have the possibility
to individualize the size of values that are around 4. 10-7.
This perception is certainly too limited for us to be able
to state that through our sight we understand the whole of
the reality that surrounds us. It means that if I translated
into reality, and rationalized on, only what I saw, almost
everything (rationally) would escape me.
The exasperated application of Enlightenment Thinking (even
if it was a useful philosophy for helping man to emerge from
the swamps of the medieval period) has, however, given man a
partial vision of the Cosmos. A vision that, translated into
culture, science and technology has made us create a logic
of the Human System which is distant and transversal from
the logic of Biological Systems.
What unites the two logics is the need for energy.
It is by following these two "schools of thought" that the
two systems evolved with different models.
To give a clarifying example, we can affirm that human
systems have experimented mechanistic models to obtain
energy and movement (as in the Otto cycle of internal
combustion engines); biological systems have used (in most
cases) the Krebs cycle.
The two systems preside both on the production of energy
starting from oxidisable substances, but while the Otto
cycle is concerned with how to get a good yield, the Krebs
cycle is concerned with how to obtain energy, accumulate it,
adjust itself to the different systems with a model of
organized complexity that modern technology is not yet able
to emulate.
The substantial difference between the two systems resides
in the fact that Biological Systems have had to adjust and
to SYNCRONIZE themselves to the most complex thermodynamic
machine that exists: the Planet Earth; creating systems of
maximum variability, with a smaller energy level and
therefore with greater yield.
The human systems are based on highly specialized models,
with high energy consumption and thus with low yield (we
pollute too much).
In the four-dimensional matrix on which the thermodynamic
machine Planet Earth is based, we are still primitive and
uncultured.
Now, briefly recalling the principles of thermodynamics, we
realize that Biological Systems became complex in order to
raise the yield of energy that derives from the use of solar
energy and terrestrial energy to the maximum point possible.
In biological systems every single organism behaves like a
thermodynamic machine. Every single thermodynamic machine in
the biological system not only uses some solar and
terrestrial energy but also the "waste products" of other
organisms, working definitively as a "Single Living
Organism."
What has not yet been understood (by Politics through to
Research) is that every organism is useful to the service of
others.
By removing one, the operation of the whole system
deteriorates and the more pieces are lost, the worse the
Ecosystem works.
To sum up: the value of entropy, which has determinate
values in biological thermodynamic systems, increases more
and more as the system degrades (loses pieces) thus damaging
the general yield of our biological machine. To use a term
which is unfortunately close to our cities, a degraded
ecosystem uses the energy at its disposal badly and
therefore pollutes more. The increasing value of entropy
represents for all thermodynamic systems a scale for
measuring pollution and the ineffectiveness of energy.
Human systems have interacted transversally with biological
systems because they have not understood their logic nor
their model.
We have thought for long time (and unfortunately still do)
that some parts of the environment could be exploited to our
liking, creating wealth; we have eliminated other parts,
such as specialized agriculture, or indiscriminately attack
portions of territory every day.
We have acted like the mechanic who when dismantling a
machine is left with a lot of extra parts when he goes to
reassemble it because he does not understand its
functionality or utility.
Our models of Development are by now prehistoric and cannot
be adjusted to the demands of the most advanced and perfect
model of Ecosystem.
The rationalist culture (based on Enlightenment Thinking)
developed up until today is reductionist; it is no longer
suitable for the demands of new times.
Man is a promoter of progress but he cannot have the
presumption that this goes in the right direction as long as
he investigates the world through eyes which look only for
personal profit. This equation is by now insufficient for
the development of the future of humanity.
We have to begin to see the world system as a complex
manifestation of complex energy forms. Biodiversity is an
energy form of organized complexity. The energy level of
every small monad of the ecosystem is correlated to the
nearest monad but also to monads distant in time and space.
One cannot enter or exit this most complex model with the
facility and the boldness with which one enters or goes out
of a room. Every time that we enter or go out of these rooms
we irreversibly change their aspect and functionality.
Ultimately, Ecological Systems and Economic Systems (notice
the same prefix Eco) have to move on the same level and
considering that we cannot act on the biological ones, we
therefore have to act on the socioeconomic ones.
We have to substantially re-examine our sensitivity and
therefore our behaviour towards the world. Where Political
Systems, Scientific System and Social System are three
functions of the same Logic.
The Enlightenment equation that affirmed:
"The exaltation of reason, whose field of investigation has,
however, to limit itself to scientifically verifiable
realities, omitting any type of metaphysical or religious
speculation."
must be reconverted into:
“A prudent use of reason, whose investigative field has to
encompass every reality, experience and culture; giving
dignity back to metaphysical speculation."
We have reached the threshold of that step in history where
the horizon is so wide that the secrets of matter go beyond
the finite to reunite in Infinity.
The slow but inexorable progression and evolution of human
civilization has brought the Human System to collide with
the Ecosystem.
As happens in the clash between galaxies, the two systems
will be affected by this mutual influence modifying every
previous Equilibrium and Knowledge in a new Ethical and
Cultural form.
We can affirm, as Thomas D’Aquinas did, that: "All of our
knowledge can only open doors on new questions and every
discovery is only the beginning of a new science" but it is
also more exact to say, still in accordance with of the
Italian philosopher and theologian, that: "You do not
possess the Truth, but it is the Truth that possesses you."
Guido Bissanti |
