Philosophies on a Sustainable Leather World

Summary
We live in an unsustainable world. Disagreements between the great civilisations of the world about the features andprinciples of the Good Life keep the global society in fhe grip of unsustainability and the overexploitation of nature creates an unsustainable global environment. History learns that disagreements of the principles of the Good Life have a chronic character. Human beings seem to lack the essential unanimity and potential of sufficiently quick and adequate mental changes to realise in time a Sustainable environment. Fortunately, however, men have one common feature, cleverness, at their disposal to beat global environmental unsustainability. Only this feature is expected to enable mankind to safeguard an essential human friendly nature in order to allow the development of a global ideal of the Good Life by coming generations to be agreed upon.

Especially the leather sector with its global dispersion and strong connection to renewable resources seems well equipped to contribute to the establishment of a Sustainable global environment. The development of the concept of the Integral Clean chrome Leather Technology by an international team of European and Indian Scientists in the fiame work of the TNO-CLRI programme is considered to be a good example of joining cleverness between North and South to promote environmental sustainability. The development and integration of technologies like the anaerobic treatment of chrome fannery waste water cum sulfur recovery, the high exhaustion chrome tanning cum complete reuse Of the spent liquor as pickle solvent and the safe application of chrome containing sludges in brickmaking solved tough environmental problems of the leather world in a cost effective and self-sustainable way.

A sustainable Leather World in the strict sense of the wording will remain anunattainable ideal. However, this ideal can be approached very closely by combining of the concept of the Integral Clean Chrome Leather Technology with more rigorous applications of existing technologies like clean collagen trading, chrome free splitting, shaving and retanning and the anaerobic digestion of solid organic wastes.

The Unsustainable World
In her State of the Environment Atlas, Joni Seager describes more than thirty important environmental problems and their local, regional and global impact on the environment as well as their health consequences for human beings. Her atlas comprises of six chapters with the following self-explaining titles:

• Worlds' Apart: affluence and need; well-being and poverty, hunger and thirst.
• Modern Living: population density, municipal waste, air pollution, mobility.
• Energy: consumption, demands, nuclear power, oil, wood, acid rain, global warming.
• Industry and Military: Industrial waste lands, fertilisers and agro-chemicals, chemical wastes, Atomic atolls, war and peace
• Ecosystems: seas, wetlands, forests, erosion, decrease of bio-diversity, health impact on humans
• Politics: protected areas, clean-up, green membership, third world dept.

The membership of green organisations is strongly increasing (in the period 1980-1991 by a factor of ten) but is still less than 2:10000 of the world population. Much more substantial is the increase of the absolute number of nations signing international conventions to protect the environment. In the period 1980-1992 this figure increased from about 100 to more than 160, which is 85% of all independent nations existing 31 December 1997 (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1998: 385). However participating in international conventions and really implementing environmental measure are different things.

These statements by Seager are conf~rmed by the UNEP report "World Environment 1972- 1992", reviewing the trends in the global environment affecting the quality of our physical environment and posing risks to human health as mentioned by Arts.

• The concentration of air pollutants is still increasing affecting lakes and forests and causing pulmonary diseases.
• The hole in the ozone layer over Antartica is still increasing in size. (However, as a result of the 1996 ban on the production of CFC's, scientists expect a slow recovery of the ozone layer).
• There is growing evidence that the human induced climate change is a fact.
• Over-fishing, oil releases and dumping of hazardous wastes increasingly affect the environmental quality of seas.
• Agricultural lands deteriorate and desertificate especially affecting the poor of the world due to the unequal accessibility of land and population growth.
• Deforestation speed is dramatic: about 17% in twenty years.
• Biological diversity is strongly decreasing: 20% of all reptiles and 10% of all mammals are endangered.

Origins of Unsustainability

Ethics
Many authors point to materialism and the lack of moral sensibility of modern people as the root of all environmental evil. In the view of many of these authors environmental problems started with the explorations by Western sailors in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. The new countries they discovered were appropriated and the local structures of government and society were modified to force a maximum exploitation by the new ruler. The destnxction of social structures and the over-exploitation of resources increased social and material poverty in the colonies and induced a nearly unlimited greed in the Western society. By fulfilling its needs and greeds through draining the resources of its colonies the Western countries created a never seen distance between source and consumption. This made them blind for the environmental consequences of this political act. One can reason what the deep cause was of this Western action. Was it a mental inferiority of Western people or a typical human feature which made the Western rulers behave as they did? The most contrary example of the Western a.ffluent society is perhaps the indigenous society of people living in close contact with their natural environment. Characteristically, such societies live in harmony with their natural environment and in the previous line of thinking one could assume a high mental quality of this indigenous people. To my opinion such conclusion is too easy and too swift.

Historical aspects
It is known that indigenous people can also be destructive with regard to their natural environment. In his book "A Green History of the Earth" (1991), Clive Ponting3 reveals the disastrous effects of the interaction of hominids and home sapiens towards nature. He describes the effect of inefficient hunting techniques of preferred hunting of easy to catch pray leading to the extinction of many, even powerful animals such as tooth tigers and mammoths. Another well known fact is that the slash and bum practices to promote agriculture in the Neolithic age lead to the removal of most of the woods in Europe. In view of these examples it seems fair to state that human beings, like many other species, are by nature inclined to act in a very aggressive towards their natural environment unless nature redresses such behaviour by severe punishment. With regard to the effect of Western civilisation on the global environment one might wonder whether this is more invasive than any other major expansions in the past for instance the Persian, Greece, Roman and Muslim cultures. The most striking difference between the Western and these historical expansions is the coincidence of Western expansion and major breakthroughs in science as a result of the growing rationalism and empirism in the Western societies. This gave the Western expansion its global impact and the opportunity for even small countries as Holland to rule colonies which were orders of magnitude greater than the homeland. It seems thus more appropriate to conclude that the coincidence of power, knowledge and distance between source and consumption constitute a major "natural" cause of environmental problems.

Western philosophy
The European growth of power and wealth was accompanied by an increased attention for the cultural and philosophic tradition of the Persian, Greece, Roman, and Muslim culture ultimately represented in the Christian and humanistic Western philosophies and the formulation of the characteristics of the Good Life presented. Some authors e.g. Lynn White jr4 see in the Christian philosophy the root of environmental problems. Many of these authors criticise the anthropocentric character of the Good Life and most of them criticise the lack of practising the goodness inherent in the principles of Western philosophy. Apart from the poor practising of its principles, the Western philosophical and the ethical debate is in fact a continuing story. It comprises a great number of important phases and principles like the Aristotelian virtues and goodness, the Kantian deontology, its duties and rights, J.S.Mill's utilitarianism, Rawl's compromise of principles in his theory of justice and fairness and the application of Rawls' theory in Hirst's associative democracy. The philosophies mentioned certainly contain essential elements for a good life in a sound natural environment. Unfortunately, the poor impact on daily life of the results of more than two millennia of Western philosophy forces to the conclusion that human beings lack to a large extent the potential of suffrciently fast adequate mental changes to actually realise the Good Life in a sustainable environment.

Diverging scales
If we want to reach a sustainable environment by means of a global mental change to a firm base for a sustainable global society we should think in time scales of centuries or millennia. This however is in striking contrast to the speed of environmental deterioration which proceeds one or two orders faster at time scale of decades. Although a sustainable environment seems essential to realise the sustainable society to practise the Good Life, it is by no means a sufficient condition to reach this ideal. Based on Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" (1998)6 one may conclude that the difference in opinion about the essential characteristics of the Good Life, between the nine most prominent civilisations is likely to be the most important chronical and global threat of the sustainability of societies.

Strategies for a Sustainable Environment

The extremes
Many strategies exist to reach the ideal of a sustainable environment. The concepts vary between, on one hand, a continuing (over)exploitation of nature based on the assumption that technological and scientific progress will come up with in time solutions to real problems actually experienced; on this basis the greater part of international negotiations on environmental conventions proceed. On the other hand the point of view of the more radical ecologists, like Jamieson, proclaiming a stringent protection of nature on the basis of its intrinsic values and the virtues to be acquired by mankind to effectuate the obligation of saving nature. Both extremes will lead to ineffective strategies.

Geological balancing
A sound basis for viable strategies seem a balanced and realistic, historical picture of the role and capabilities of mankind in its interaction with nature. To assess this position of mankind it is useful to take as a theoretical starting point a strongly deteriorated nature being so hostile to human beings that their survival is seriously endangered. To make this example more concrete we assume an anthropogenic climate change within half a century due to a growth of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere with 400 ppm v and an increase of average global temperature with five degrees centigrade. Although very hostile to many actual species including man this fluctuation seems negligible as compared to the variations of physical conditions and its possibility for life during the history of earth. Existing geological and paleo-biological insights reveal that just after the appearance of photosynthesis at planet earth (2.5 billion years ago) carbon dioxide was by far the most abundant constituent of the atmosphere. One billion years ago, carbon dioxide was largely removed from the atmosphere and the increased oxygen content started to play its decisive role in the development of the sexual reproduction. In spite of an average global temperature, which was still about thirty degrees higher than today, nature was flowering. In view of such facts it seems a rather arrogant anthropocentric view if ecologists appoint themselves to be the saviours and protectors of Nature. As Stephen Gould highlights in: "Eight Little Piggies, Reflections on Nature" (1993)8, mankind should be aware of its very modest role on earth. We are even unable to destroy life on earth; all nuclear power in the world is only a one ten thousands fraction of the energy which was set free by the collision of the 10 km asteroid in the Caribbean region, 65 million years ago. This collision terminated the existence of the saurians but enabled at the same time an explosive development of a great number of other species ultimately also leading to the unique mentally gifted mankind. In this perspective man is only a humble creature strongly dependent on a very narrow range of physical conditions incidentally realised at this moment. For his own sake man should take care not to change these conditions by his own behaviour beyond the limits set for his physical existence. This is the message to the big spenders of this earth, especially to those who are exhausting resources which can only be restored at a geological time scale. Addiction to geological wastes In fact mankind has become seriously addicted to a life dependant on geological wastes such as carbon, oil, gas and ores which are emitted from not completely closed natural cycles. Actually, these geological wastes, produced and concentrated by nature during billions of years by mean of solar and geothermal energy are being irreversibly and at a high speed dispersed in the environment or re-introduced into natural cycles. In this way mankind loses the material to which it is addicted and contributes to the development at short notice of physical conditions which are hostile to human beings. From this point of view promoting a sustainable nature is much more a strategy of protecting mankind from the development of a hostile nature than the other way around.

Perspectives Towards Sustainability

Concepts
The concept of sustainability as mentioned in "Limits of Growth"(1972) by the club of Rome has no significance in itself but only in the context of quality (Achterberg 1994)9. Obviously this is also expressed in the underlying principles and the international conventions relating to this concept. According to the World Charter(l982) and Caring of the Earth(l991) sustainability deals with: "improving human life by processes that make human beings to realise their potential to build self-confidence and lead lives of dignity and fulfillment... including a long and healthy life, education, access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, political freedom, guaranteed human rights and freedom of violence". With regard to the intrinsic values of nature it is stated: "Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired...Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action". The concept of sustainability is inspired by J.S.Mill's stationary state representing a global equilibrium between the forces which determine the growth and decline of capital and population. It is expected that a condition of sustainability can only last a limited period of time practically covering about two generations in mankind. In 1993 the WRR (Netherlands Scientific Board of Governmental Policy) produced a memorandum on alternative developments towards a sustainable society. Main issues of this memorandum are the concept of Environmental Space and the elucidation of the type of interactions between the economic and the ecological system.

Environmental space and impact
The Environmental Space of human activities is defined as the total capacity of absorption of wastes, of non-renewable resources and of agricultural land, forests and waters, which is allowed to be exploited at a global scale without impinging upon the access of future generations to these resources. According to the WRR the discussions about environmental consequences of human behaviour are obscured by underestimating the complexity of the interaction between the economic and the ecological system. This is also the reason why the attractive concept of Environmental Space cannot be put into operation in the daily practice of environmental policy. Fig. 1 represents a picture of the relevant interactions.

To include also the preferences of more radical ecologists, the original WRR scheme is modified by splitting the block of the "needs of society" into a material and an ideal part. In a self-explanatory way, the scheme highlights the relation between the needs and impacts of the economic and the ecological system as a result of human activities. According to WRR the impact (I) can be represented by the following equation of definition: I = P * W * f[Ep . Ec]. In this equation P is the magnitude of population, W the material well-being per capita, Ep the environmental intensity of production per unit product and Ec the environmental impact of consumption per capita.

WRR perspectives
Depending on different perceptions of the magnitude of economic and ecological risks the WRR describes four compromising perspectives of acting towards a sustainable interaction: "Exploiting", "Conserving", "Managing" and "Protection" of the environment.

"Exploitation" is the perspective which applies in case the Environmental Space is considered to be sufficiently large to absorb the impact of human activities. In view of the technological improvements foreseen it is expected that Ep can be decreased to such an extent that environmental policy is not actively directed at a reduction of P, W and Ec in order to conserve economic growth. "Managing" comprises of a policy based on picture of an Environmental Space of moderate magnitude with, however, hard limits. Without influencing P and W, this policy will actively reduce Ep by stimulating the development and application of clean technologies and moderately reducing Ec by directing civic preferences through social-economic means to a dematerialised consumption.

"Conservation" starts with the point of view that the Environmental Space is small. In view the expected low effects of influencing p and Mp the reduction of Me is given highest ority to reach a sustainable interaction between the econorme and the ecological system.

"Protection" represents the extreme point of view that all risks with regard to the ecological stem should be prevented. Only B is considered be the hardly variable parameter but W, Ep as well as Ec have to be reduced strongly by redistribution of resources, and reduction and materialisation of consumption which automatically leads to a decrease of the impact of production and in short to a society with an abstemious way of life.

It is not surprising that the international environmental discourse is greatly determined by the type of policy which should prevail in the different participating countries Notwithstanding the warnings from several sides especially from non governmental organisations, most environmental representatives in the international conferences try to persist in a policy of ~xploitation usually blaming other parties for non-adequate measures or over-consumption in he past. It is a picture of old-fashioned power politics without any ethic basis of the Good life which determines the disappointing results of these negotiations Apparently there is a leed of adequate political philosophies and economics to break through this deadlock

The Economic Theory of Hans Immler

"Being" and "Thinking"
In his book "Welche Wirtschaft Braucht Die Natur" (1993), Immler discusses the origin of the lack of power to change mentality. He describes the development of hominids during the Paleolithic as the childhood of humanicy Apart from the biological and genetic qualities present, the unique feature of intellectual qualities became more and more important and meanwhile the biological "Being" was separated from the mental "Thinking". This separation alienated mankind from nature and culminated in the submission and domestication of nature which started in the neolithic: the adolescence of mankind of nature. At the moment mankind has reached the end of adolescence and two different ways to maturity are open: (i) A continued separation of Being and Thinking or (ii) A restoration of the original bond. The first way will shortly lead to a disastrous end, human beings. By consuming the human friendly nature mankind produces a nature which is hostile to human beings. In this way human beings consume their own future. The second way indicated by Immler is the restoration of the original bond between "Being" and "Thinking" and terminating the alienation of man from nature.

The exclusion of nature
The exclusion of "ature from society is manifested in a great number of ways. The two extreme perspectives of act: "Exploitation" and "Conservation" represent typical examples. The first one leads to subordinatio, of nature in a role as supplier of energy and goods and as ,refuse dump. The second one leads to its canonization and the confinement of nature in the holy of holiness, untouchable by human beings. To Immler both are seriously wrong: nature has to be an integral part of society. He wonders whether the economic activities of animals like moles and sharks are considered natural while analogue economic activities of humans are considered to belong to a totally different category One might question: why is a termite hill nature and a building not? One of the most serious forms of alienation is manifested in the relation of economy and industry versus nature, where nature plays its most subordinate role. It is no surprise that Immler proposes strong changes here. He states that not human beings but nature is the only producing entity. All industrial activity of man is limited to an intelligent modification of natural qualities and powers. Therefore it should be an activity in harmony with and not against nature! A sustainable economy is only possible if, like investments and labor, nature is being compensated for its performance in the production process. In the sustainable concept of Fig. 2 it means the adding of labour, capital and renewable (solar?) energy to recover the materials necessary from wastes emitted.

In this way the uptake of material and energy from nature can be reduced to a sustainable level (Fig. 2). In the same way as in the usual production process the extra labour and capital involved are rewarded for theirproduction functions through adequate payment by society of the required labour (1) and capital costs (c) as part of the product price. The accent of the interaction between society and nature is shifted towards the non-material ideal connection. The impact on the environment is strongly reduced by confining the uptake to renewable resources and recycled material.

Ecological revolution and the production of nature
Immler proclaims an ecological revolution to provide nature with the right of reproduction. In this view the ecological right of reproduction to restore nature's productivity is comparable to the social and labour rights ensuring the productivity of labor and the interest on investments to safeguard the availability of the necessary capital. In a logical extension of Immler' thinking it can be reasoned that like in the social revolution also nature disposes of a decisive striking power. Different from the striking power of labour are the geological dimensions of the consequences of nature's strike. These consequences will inevitably force society to grant nature's rights.

Opposite to the second extreme mentioned, nature should be available to human beings and vice versa. Immler's ecological economy is meant to produce nature which is his only rational choice between the two alternatives (i) leaving a deteriorated, exhausted nature unconsciously behind or (ii) actively improving the situation by restoring its productivity as far as possible. In the same way is Immler's ecological consumer not a passive, restraint individual, guided by a bad conscience, but an intelligent, capable human being striving the Good Life but conserving ecological sustainability by making optimum rational choices.

Need of cleverness
In general the industrial processes are considered to be backward. According to Immler the still used material- and energy-devouring technologies of the 19th century are unsuitable to combat the environmental crisis. Much intelligence, skills, labor and capital are needed to be adequately equipped for the ecological industrial economy. Immler's ecological economy is considered to be sustainable in a natural as well as in an economical respect. Provided the existing economic structures remained intact, inclusively payment of interests on investments, the shift from a material-intensive to a labour-intensive economy is a prosperous way to well-being with even sufficient scope for growth of economic value without exhausting the environment.

Practicality of lmmler's society
In terms of the WRR perspectives Immler's society seems to be governed by a compromise between "Conservation and Managing". His society is no longer divided in a small group of radicalising ecologists and a vast majority of environmentally disinterested people. The choice of such a society is based on the fact that there is no rational alternative. A majority of society shall prefer the humane rules of the ecological society over the dictatorial laws of the "Leviathan" of a nature hostile towards mankind. Immler's theory is characterised by the fact that nature is not considered to be a vulnerable entity which needs protection but much more as a useful and powerful business partner which however turns out to be revengeful and merciless when violating the rules of business. Another typical characteristic is his accent on the presence rather than on the absence of qualities of human beings. He is much more challenging human intellectual qualities to develop adequate production processes and restore nature than preaching about the missing virtues and the promoting of mental acts of finding the way to the Good Life. This way of thinking seems well in harmony with the rationalising of the modem home economicus. The low level of ethical loftiness of such an approach can certainly be subjected to criticism. However, just the absence of this loftiness constitutes a good reason why Immler's theory can be adequately effective to restore ecological sustainability in time to safeguard a human friendly nature. Only this will enable mankind to reach an ideal of the Good Life by coming generations to be agreed upon.  

Next