Ethics in Industrial Ecology
Martina Maria Keitsch
Oslo School of Architecture and Design (Norway)
Abstract
Industrial ecology (IE) intends to improve industrial processes in a way that the society benefits with as less damage of the environment as possible. As a concept it gives responses to environmental problems in the field of industry and technology and aims to enable management of human activity on a sustainable basis by minimizing energy and materials usage, ensuring acceptable quality of life for people, minimizing negative ecological impacts of human activity to levels natural systems can sustain, and maintaining economic viability of systems for industry, trade and commerce. Industrial ecology offers a systems methodology for the analysis of material and energy flows. Thereby an investigation of the connection between humans and nature, placing human activity in the larger context of the biophysical environment from which we obtain resources and into which we put our wastes is of essential importance.
Since industrial ecology has been developed by engineers and natural scientists an ethical reflection of the concept is often neglected. Ubiquitarily manifests however in anthropocentric assertions such as harmonizing the contradiction between nature and culture with scientific expertise, appropriate technology and socio-economic management.
This paper interprets industrial ecology ethically by relating values to specific characteristics of the systems methodology. This interpretation should provide a starting point for a debate within the field out from the concepts’ own epistemological premises. The presumption for the value of this endeavour is that industrial ecology is not morally “neutral” but possesses an implicit normative potential for the design of a possible sustainable world.
Following the introduction, which presents the systems methodology as a core concept in industrial ecology, the second section gives an overview over main environmental ethics positions to prepare the ground for the argument that industrial ecology might benefit from considering a moderate biocentrism. Section three examines three epistemological characteristics of the systems methodology: interdependence, diversity and complexity and explores their relationship to values in ethics: responsibility, openness and correspondence. Conclusively, the fourth section gives some reasons why a moderate biocentrism supplementing anthropocentric positions is advantageous for IE and what benefits can be gained for research and practice in the field.
Keywords:
Systems methodology, industrial ecology, ethics, anthropocentrism, biocentrism, values, normative impacts, decision-makingReferences
ALLENBY B., 2003, History, Responsibility, Design, http://www.att.com/whs/ind_ecology/articles.
Google Scholar
APEL K.O., The Ecological Crisis as a Problem for Discourse Ethics, in: Ecology and Ethics, ed. Øfsti, A., Tapir, Trondheim 1992.
Google Scholar
ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, Penguin Books, New York 1998.
Google Scholar
AYRES R., SIMONIS U.E. (eds.), Industrial Metabolism. Theory and Policy, UN University Press, Tokyo 1994.
Google Scholar
BERTALANNFY L.V., General Systems Theory, Development, Applications, George Braziller, New York 1968.
Google Scholar
CAPRA F., PAULI G. (eds.), Steering business toward sustainability. UN University Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris 1995.
Google Scholar
COOPER J.S., 2000, Categorization of Decision-Making Tools: from needs to analysis’, in: SETAC 21st Annual Meeting, Nashville.
Google Scholar
DRYZEK J., 1990, Green Reason: Communicative Ethics for the Biosphere, in: Environmental Ethics, vol. 12, Fall.
Google Scholar
FET A.M., Systems engineering methods and environmental life cycle performance within ship industry, dissertation thesis, Tapir, Trondheim 1997.
Google Scholar
FROSCH R.A., GALLOPOULUS N.E., 1989, Strategies for manufacturing, in: Scientific American 261(9), p. 94-102.
Google Scholar
EHRENFELD J.R., 2000, Industrial Ecology: paradigm Shift or Normal Science?, in: American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44 no. 2, p. 229-244.
Google Scholar
EMERY F.E. (ed.) (1969), Systems methodology, Selected Readings, Harmondswoth, Middlesex, England.
Google Scholar
HABERMAS J., Moral consciousness and communicative action, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 1990.
Google Scholar
HABERMAS J., LUHMANN N., Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die System-forschung?, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1973.
Google Scholar
INDICATORS of Sustainable Development, 1999, http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sustainable/quality99/.
Google Scholar
KEITSCH M., HERMANSEN J., ØFSTI A., Sustainable wastewater management based on the concept of industrial ecology, Tapir, Trondheim 1999.
Google Scholar
KEITSCH M.,YONG G., Eco-planning and development in coastal communities in China. Industrial ecology and process change, Draft version, Dalian (China) 2002.
Google Scholar
KEITSCH, M. ISENMANN R., 2003, Industrial Ecology: a philosophically focused appraisal, in: Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, 15-16 September, Stamford Hall, University of Leicester, UK, p.72-84.
Google Scholar
KEITSCH M., OPOKU H., 2006, Une approche objective de la durabilité? in: Théorie des implications scientifiques et politiques de l’écologie industrielle, Ecologie et Politique, n°32, Paris.
Google Scholar
KRAS E., 2011, The Deep Roots of Sustainability, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 6 no 1, p. 11-30.
Google Scholar
LOTKA A.J., Elements of Physical Biology. Wilkins and Wilkins, Baltimore 1925.
Google Scholar
LYOTRAD F., 1999, Introduction to The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/pm/lyotard-introd.htm.
Google Scholar
NAESS A., Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989.
Google Scholar
WCED, Our Common Future, Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford 1987.
Google Scholar
PAPUZINSKI A., 2009, The Idea of Philosophy vs. Eco-Philosophy, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 4 no 1, p. 51-59.
Google Scholar
POSNER M. (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 1989.
Google Scholar
POWERS. C.W, CHERTOW M.R., Industrial Ecology, Overcoming Policy Fragmentation, in: Thinking Ecologically, the next generation of environmental policy, eds. Chertow, Esty, Yale University Press, New Haven – London 1997.
Google Scholar
REDCLIFT M.R., 2009, Sustainable Development (1987-2005) – an Oxymoron Comes of Age, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 4 no 1, p. 33-50.
Google Scholar
RESCHER N., Cognitive Systematization. A Systems-Theoretic Approach to a Coherentist Theory of Knowledge, Totowa, Roma and Littlefield, Oxford 1979.
Google Scholar
ROLSTON H. III, Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World, Temple University Press, Philadelphia 1988.
Google Scholar
RUSSEL D.L., 2010, Curmudgeon’s Thoughts on Sustainability, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 5 no 1, p. 15-22.
Google Scholar
SPAEMANN R., Lecture, Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts, Munich, Germany 8th February 2000.
Google Scholar
SMITH R.L. Ecology and Field Biology, Harper Collins, New York 1990.
Google Scholar
TUZIAK A., 2010, Socio-Economic Aspects of Sustainable Development on Global and Local Level, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 5 no 2, p. 39-49.
Google Scholar
Authors
Martina Maria KeitschOslo School of Architecture and Design Norway
Statistics
Abstract views: 11PDF downloads: 5
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
