How New are New Harms Really? Climate Change, Historical Reasoning and Social Change

AbstractClimate change and other contemporary harms are often depicted asNew Harms because they seem to constitute unprecedented challenges. ThisNew Harms Discourse rests on two important premises, both of which we criticise on empirical grounds. First, we argue that thePremise of changed conditions of human interaction—according to which the conditions regarding whom people affect (and how) have changed recently and which emphasises the difference with past conditions of human interaction—risks obfuscating how humanity’s current predicament is merely the transient result of long-term, gradual processes and developments. Second, we dispute thePremise that New Harms have certain features that render them new and argue thatNew Harms share characteristics with other (past) harms. On the basis of these premises, theNew Harms Discourse concludes that climate change is a unique social challenge that requires radically new moral thinking, but we argue that thisUniqueness Myth distracts attention from the valuable lessons we can draw from humanity ’s successes and failures in dealing with past harms. We will illustrate how action to tackle climate change and other complex, systemic harmscan be informed by the interdisciplinary study of historic harms. We will argue that rejecting theNew Harms Discourse is not only empirically justified, it also gives cause for optimism, because it opens up the possibility to draw upon the past to face problems in the present and future.
Source: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics - Category: Medical Ethics Source Type: research