Biodiversity: Cultural And Ethical Aspect

Biodiversity, culture and ethics each raise complex conceptual issues of their own - to attempt to describe their interactions is no easy task especially if one wishes to keep in mind the theme of this Forum : "Science and development, Towards a New Partnership". The very concepts of "diversity" and "biodiversity" have now a different meaning and content from the one they had a few decades ago because of the progress made in scientific research and the increased awareness of the importance of ecological systems.

We now know that the first bacteria was born 3,4 billion years ago. A census (philogenetic tree) covers about 1,400,000 species as of today - the unknown species are estimated at between 5 and 50 millions . The new quantitative information which the scientific community is gathering has qualitative impacts on the problematique of "biodiversity". It contributes to the understanding of the complexity of the relationships between living organisms and underlines the fact that this diversity is at the very basis of life.

Organic diversity is now accompanied by another type of diversity. We are moving from a society based on "production" to one based on "knowledge" a knowledge which is producing a huge information of a great diversity. In the field of science alone, there are over 2.000.000 scientific articles published each year in about 60.000 scientific magazines - about one article every four minutes.

The scientific vocabulary is enriched by 40.000 new words every year. Diversity has thus become not only a condition for biological and ecological survival but also for the development of a society of knowledge where the process is much more important than the product. The process is in itself a source of diversity With the help of innovation and creativity (added value) the "process" has become an important source of industrial diversity.

In the present paper we shall try to analyze the effects of culture and ethics on biodiversity without ignoring the reverse process - that is the key role of diversity in the areas of culture and ethics.

Three main topics will be dealt with succinctly:

1. The spiritual dimension of biodiversity.

2. Ethical Implications of diversity.

3. Cultural diversity : a prerequisite for communication and world peace.

I. The spiritual dimension of biodiversity

Diversity is a very basic concept for the understanding of nature as well as of human behaviour. It is a physical and a socio-cultural reality. It also has its spiritual and metaphysical facets. All of the Holy Books underline diversity as an essential element of Creation. I shall limit myself to a few quotations from the Koran (in which we find 37 times the expression "diversity").


"... To each among you
Have We prescribed a Law
And an Open Way.
If God had so willed,
He would have made you
A single people, but (His
Plan is) to test you in what
He hath given you: so strive
As in a race in all virtues.
The goal of you all is to God;
It is He that will show you
The truth of the matters
in which you dispute." (V, 48)

"It is He who produceth
Gardens, with trellises
and without, and dates,
And tilth with produce
of all kinds, and olives
And pomegranates,
similar (in kind)
and different (in variety):
eat of their fruit
in their season, but render
The dues that are proper
on the day that the harvest is
gathered. But waste not
By excess : for God
Loveth not the wasters." (VI, 141)

"If it had been thy Lord's Will,
They would all have believed,
All who are on earth !
Wilt thou then compel mankind,
Against their will, to believe!" (X, 99)

"And the things on this earth
which he has multiplied
in varying colours (and qualities)
Verily in this is a Sign
for men who celebrate
the praises of God (in gratitude) (XVI, 133)

"And among His Signs
Is the creation of the heavens
And the Earth, and the variations
In your languages
And your colours : verily
in that are Signs
for those who know." (XXX , 22)

"Seest thou not that God
Sends down rain from
the sky, and leads it
Through springs inn the earth?
Then He causes to grow,
Therewith, produce of various
colours : then it withers;
Thou wilt see it grow yellow;
Then he makes it
Dry up and crumble away.
Truly, in this, is
A Message of remembrance to
Men of understanding." (XXXIX, 21)
This small selection of verses is meant to show the diverse manners in which the concept of diversity is used in the Koran and how it applies to human beings, nature, plants and life in general. A remarkable verse X, 99,(see above) is the one in which it is said that if God had wanted to make all the people on earth believers he could have done so. It then goes on to criticize those who exert pressures in matters of belief, "Wilt thou then compel mankind, Against their will, to believe!" . This verse not only highlights the vital role of diversity in the Koran but also stresses the sense of tolerance and freedom which are essential conditions for diversity.

We also see how the Koran stresses cultural diversity (verse XXX, 22 above) and the "variations in languages and colours"... "If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people..." (V, 48 above). The reference to the spiritual dimension is also essential if we are to understand the shaping of values which affect our attitudes towards life and its diverse aspects. The spiritual concept of diversity leads to the understanding of "unity". Without a comprehension of unity we can not apprehend the true sense of diversity.


II. Ethical Implications of diversity
The following text of Professor Pierre Chambon is left in its original form which highlights beautifully the reasons why the living sciences of the last fifty years reveal to us a source of ethical values : the respect of the biological universe.

"Accroché à l'un des rameaux de la couronne de l'arbre phylogenetique, fruit plus qu'improbable d'une loterie cosmique, l'homme qui est le seul être vivant a pouvoir se représenter lui-même comme un autre, est aussi le seul à connaître ses racines. Il me semble que cela lui impose des devoirs particuliers. Presque paradaxolement, s'il fallait trouver dans l'histoire du vivant que la biologie des cinquantes dernières années nous revele une source de valeurs éthiques, celles-ci devraient sans doute prendre en compte le respect de l'univers biologique auquel nous sommes si profondément ancrés." (Le Monde, op. cit.)

The respect of the biological universe calls for a set of ethical norms including a high consideration for diversity. We can not however separate the socio-cultural systems of humanity from the biological universe of which they are a part. Yet, the whole game of "power" consists in imposing one's own system of values and weakening if not overtaking the values of others thereby reducing cultural diversity.

We are thus confronted with a delicate ethical problem because all research today is showing the very close links between ecological systems and cultural systems in operational terms. Biodiversity is not an end in itself; it can no longer be thought of independently of the socio-cultural environment which it sustains.

Diversity has positive as well as negative aspects. When we look at the diversity in the quality of life within and between countries we are struck by huge inequalities. These inequalities make it very difficult to preserve biological diversity because of the rate of consumption and of pollution of the privileged minority on Earth.

How can one ethically give first priority to biodiversity as long as the problem of poverty has not been solved through the "partnership of science and development". About 1500 million people live in a state of absolute poverty, have no drinkable water nor electricity and are illiterate or quasi-illiterate.

On the other hand, we find 20 % of the world population earning 150 times more than the poorest 20 %. The diversity in the situations in the North and in the South is getting constantly worse.

There are more than 1100 million persons who earn less than a dollar per day ! The 20% poorest people in the world earn only 1,4% of the total world income in comparison with 82.7% in the case of the 20% richest people.

The countries of the North which represent less than 22 % of the world population consume 70 % of the world's energy, 75% of its metals, 85 % of its wood and two thirds of its food products. The North also accounts for over 90 % of expenditures in R&D and 80% of the expenditures in education.

How long can the ethics of biodiversity endure the consequences of unequitable economic diversity within and between countries ? I believe this to be a vital question to which a common answer must be found jointly by the North and the South on the basis of universal values to be agreed upon. The problem is one of equilibrium within diversity - an equilibrium which calls for an equitable redistribution and social justice. Without such a peaceful redistribution a socio-ecological explosion is inevitable in the medium term.


III. Cultural diversity: a prerequisite for communication and world peace
The Editorial of the issue of January 1994 (# 28) of "Biology International" highlights the cultural dimension when it states that in dealing with the theme "Origins, Maintenance and loss of biodiversity", "the major constraint is of cultural origin."

Cultural implications are to be found in every step of life. Let us take something as simple as the title of this international forum as well as of the international programme which calls upon the collaboration of a number of intergovernmental and governmental organizations : DIVERSITAS. Why choose a language which has a very clear cultural bias when dealing with a world wide programme. What happens to cultural diversity ? The word "diversity" exists in every language. In fact the use of "diversitas" can be interpreted as an unconscious form of ethnocentrism.

It is somehow contradictory to defend the principles of cultural diversity and cultural identity and at the same time claim "universality" for one's own values. This is what the West is doing in its relations with the rest of the world. Such an ethnocentrism is based on the assumption that "modernization" equals "westernization" and "westernization" signifies "universalization". These assumptions need to be corrected.

In a study entitled "Agenda for Japan in the 1990s" carried out by NIRA (Nippon Institute for Research Advancement), the President of the Institute stressed, in the Introduction the issue of cultural diversity :

"... it is no longer appropriate to view the world in terms of military polarization, i.e., Pax Russo-Americana. Rather, it has become necessary to look at the world system differently, to put aside a long-sustained view of world order based on stratification under American rule. The new world order may be called may be called the Age of Diverse Civilizations, based on the emergence of an age with multiple co-existing civilizations."

He then adds that "Japan's modernization served as evidence that modernization is different from westernization".

This last conclusion is very important because the ideological basis of colonialism, neo-colonialism (and now post-colonialism) has always been and still is that one can go through the process of "modernization" without going first through "westernization". There is no room left for diversity and for freedom of choice. We have to deal with prefabricated modernity and fast food democracy and human rights as defined by others.

When we speak of cultural diversity we speak of cultural identity, of cultural values, of preservation as well as of development of culture. This diversity does not cut off cultures from the "universal" - on the contrary it is diversity which is the source of universality and which permits true communication and mutual understanding instead of one way monologues. One of the dangers facing humanity is the absence of this cultural communication. We have a one way communication - the one of the powerful who imposes his values by force if necessary while maintaining that they are of a "universal" nature.

In 1978, during the First North South Round Table (Rome), I stressed the fact that the main problem in North-South relations was first and foremost one of "cultural communication". Cultural values are playing a greater and greater role in international relations. The big question is how to preserve diversity within harmony ? It is one of the conditions for the building of world peace.

On 2 October 1986, in Tokyo, in a Television Program of NHK, with Jean-Jacques Servan Schreiber, on the future of international cooperation, I maintained that future conflicts will have cultural causes and that we may witness such a type of conflict between the United States and Japan.

During the Gulf War, in an interview with "Der Spiegel" (11 February 1991) I qualified that war as the "First Civilizational War". In 1991 I published a book with that title (in arabic and french). The weight I have always attached to the importance of culture and cultural values in development and in international relations has been a constant one. It is therefore interesting to quote the following excerpt from "Foreign Affairs" written in 1993 by Samuel Huntington, Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University :

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural... The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

Culture and science have become the main determinants of the international system. A "partnership" between the two may help to solve many issues. As the subtheme of the Conference is "science and development towards a new partnership" one should recall René Maheu's (former Director general of UNESCO) definition of development : "Le developpement est la science devenue culture".

Ilya Prigogine has also very well described the link between science and culture by maintaining that the "problems of a culture can influence the development of scientific theories". He has also underlined the link between "science", "culture", "diversity" and "universality",

"la science s'ouvrira à l'universel lorsqu'elle cessera de nier, de se considérer étrangère aux préoccupations des sociétés, et sera enfin capable de dialoguer avec les les hommes de toutes les cultures et pourra respecter leurs questions."

The implication of this statement is that science is not yet "open" to the "universal". Maybe the big task of the "science and development partnership" is to allow science to open itself to universality through a full respect of cultural diversity. It would be one of the best ways to contribute to better cultural communication and thus to the building of world peace and the respect of biodiversity.