Adam Stefan Trembecki

Kraków, Polska

GEOETHICS AND ECOLOGY

Abstract

The subject of geoethical considerations is the man aiming to modify his activities in natural conditions. The subject of ecologists’ activities is nature, especially its legal normalization and, connected with it, sanctions set up without proper motivation basis. - This different approach to the realization of the mentioned objective - which is the proper formation of nature by man - produces completely different methods of procedure. Not denying the necessity to apply sanctions for an inappropriate procedure, these sanctions should be limited to exceptional situations when motivation becomes hardly effective. - The concern about suitable formation of the environment of industrial activities is not only the domain of traditional ecologists but is also the concern of geoethicians who create this environment. - The approach of ecologists justifying the application of sanctions for inappropriate activities is much restricted. Full activity is not limited to the application of sanctions only. - The geoethical approach deals with practical problems in a complex way. These problems concern the following: appropriate utilization of a deposit in the course of its mining exploitation, full utilization of the quality of the exploited deposit, full utilization of an accompanying mineral, creation of the conditions of safe mining work while controlling the following threats of mining exploitation (water threats, collapse threats, bursts, gas threats, thermal threats, fire threats. - Thus the geoethical problems are much more numerous than the sozological problems. - The problems presented here are only quotations from some publications of the author. In the author’s publications these problems have been explicitly discussed.

Dependence of the Man on the Nature

As a result of controlling nature and diseases that decimated the human race, the number of population in the areas specially convenient for living has grown rapidly. Also the density of population in these areas has increased what created new situations. Consequently the complication brought about numerous conflicts that led to wars destroying not only the man but the nature as well. Cutting down the cedar forests in the Mediterranian Basin to obtain building materials for warships is the example of nature’s permanent destruction already in ancient times. This activity brought about decay of soil that has not been restored despite the lapse of time. Thus the zone of rocky desert has been formed that is an outward sign of nature’s devastation. The stronger the mutual dependence of man and nature became, the more intensive was the human activity not only in the military field but also, in particular, in the field of industralisation and very intensive agricultural production.

In this way, a rational formation of the relation „ man surrounding nature“ was needed in the situation when the departure from this harmony became hazardous, especially for man. There appeared tendencies to generate new sciences:

- ecology in the first instance

- geoethics in the second instance.

The common feature of these sciences is a tendency for a harmonious activity „man - nature“. These sciences have a common aim but its achievement is being realized separately. The nature is the subject of ecologists’ activities whereas thesubject of geoethics is the man in the nature.

The protection against thoughtless devastation of nature is the subject of ecology. Prevention of the wasteful devastation of nature and its poisoning with industrial wastes is the motive power of this activity.

Poisoning with industrial wastes is caused, to a great extent, by savings in the investment process. This happens when we do not include costs for neutralization of admixtures harmful to the environment in the investments although valuable components may be obtained in the process of neutralization.

The intake of fumes from the agglomeration of iron ore poisoning the people working there is the example. After intaking and neutralizing these fumes, significant amounts of mercury were obtained, the value of which covered the costs of the neutralization of wastes.

We could provide much more examples. Furthermore some industrial wastes contain valuable components. However, obtaining them requires to apply highly developed technologies and, therefore, it is not realized.

To overcome these difficulties legal sanctions encouraging the rational activities are of a great help.

Basing the ecologists’ activity on the ruthlessly determined sanctions while neglecting the motivation of such a procedure causes resistance manifested in the formal evading of these severe regulations. They originate numerous arguments which become a nutriment for layers and experts. The ability of the Polish people formed in the course of ages to omit severe regulations enforced by the invaders has, by no means, significant share in such a behaviour. It alleviates the ruthless regulations imposed by the ecologists.

Another obstacle in the legal formalization is the character of these regulations. Sometimes this character assumes unexpected formulations. Let us give some examples. Practice shows that the ways of misleading the control are simple.

The check-ups are carried out at day when the dust collection plant devices operate properly. However when the industrial plants do not expect any check-up, e.g. at night, the dust collection plant devices, are switched off or, even worse, the waste collected in filters is sent into the atmosphere to save the costs of its transport.

An electric power plant in the vicinity of Leipzig is another example in the positive meaning of the word. The plant exploited polluted coal which after purification formed quite a big dump of the wastes polluted with pyrite. The electric power plant faced two problems: the first one was dedusting of fumes which was successfully solved. The plant, however, had a great difficulty with the second problem concerning reclamation of the dump polluted with pyrite. Numerous expertises did not help - dump could not be reclaimed. The electric power plant charged with fines, switched off the fume removal device. Then the dump became covered with a thick layer of sediment precipitated from the fumes. To our surprise, the dump grew green by itself since the alkaline ash has completely neutralized pyrite. It happened contrary to all the expectations and instructions of ecologists. The electric power plant „Bełchatów“ experienced another but equally unexpected course of phenomena. Ecologists were afraid that the plant would collect the air pollutions coming from the German Democratic Republic in such a way that they would become dangerous for our environment. However , something unexpected happened. Combustion of 40 million tons of coal a year by the electric power plants produced such a strong rising air current that it lifted up pollutions from the GDR to a considerable height. They underwent rarefication and were no longer threatening the environment.

The presented examples show that there exist cases when the predictions of ecologists and their experts are not confirmed in practice and then the practitioners, following their intuition, find the solution to the problem , usually in the least expected way.

In relation to the recommendations of ecologists we should apply the principle of limited confidence since there are cases when satisfying the instructions of ecologists does not always bring about the predicted effects. Simply speaking, practice precedes theoretical considerations. It happens, obviously, in atypical situations. Hence the theoretical considerations must be thoroughly confronted with the real state . Only then this confrontation can provide reliable confirmation of the effectiveness of the recommended method. Reality is complicated and its analysis is not simple.

Geoethics

The man - especially his activity regarding the surrounding nature - is the subject of geoethics.

The man’s development depends on his mastery of nature. There are two ways how to use the nature’s goods:

· exploration consisting in gaining renewable nature’s reserves ( without disturbing its

state)

· and exploitation of non-renewable nature’s reserves by winning nature’s goods.

This refers to the reserves that are renewed so slowly that their reconstruction in practice is not taken into consideration. As much as ecology aims to preserve the original state or even to return to the previous state and it has a preservation character the geoethics prefers progress in the relationship „man - nature“. The existence of the man depends on his control of the nature.

Preservation of the present state of nature means establishment of reservation parks, i.e. skansens of nature and protection of the countryside by limiting man’s activity.

However we should be reasonable in creating reservation parks or protection of the countryside since they limit man’s activity and the possibility of his existence.

Let us give the following example of the necessity of moderation: the complete prohibition of cutting the grass and grazing the sheep in the Polish Tatra Mts. expelled chamois to the Slovak Tatra Mts. where such a prohibition was not considered as obligatory. The not cut grass became valueless not cut hay with the course of time inhibiting the growth of new shoots. As a result, chamois searching for valuable fodder moved to the Slovak part of the Tatra Mts. Surely, ecologists did not expect this phenomenon while it was obvious to every highlander.

The present state of nature is far from any ideal. The laws of the jungle are the rules there. The stronger being devours the weaker one.

Nature is being devastated by itself. When devastation becomes complete and when it happens unexpectedly then it is described as disastrous (disasters such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, sudden transgression of the sea, etc.). The man is helpless when facing the mentioned disasters. However an appropriate behaviour in the time of the disasters can decrease the extent of the calamity. Fortunately disasters occur rarely but it is hard and usually beyond human possibilities to predict their origin.

Most devastation processes in the nature occur slowly. Their reconnaissance is relatively accurate, and, what is more important, in some cases their extent can be reduced due to the skillful procedures and even their natural course can be stopped. The discussed transformations relate to big territories and therefore the preventive action is a long-term activity and its extent includes deserts, steppes (origin of steppes), areas of floods, areas of desalinated land.

To sum up conservatism is the essence of ecology and it is reflected in both preservation of the current state and even the return to the state ex ante. Thus an ecologist is, to a great extent, predominated by traditionalism.

Geoethics prefers progress in the field of nature’s control. Devastation of nature occurs in considerably large areas, e.g. those of stepization and desertization.

The positive interference of man takes place, e.g. by the increase in water retention, by irrigating melioration work, preventing of soil erosion while cutting down the forests, sprinkling irrigation of dry areas, control of stream channels of watercourses preventing the devastation of the terrain topography.

Thus the increase of nature’s suitability by its proper management is the subject of geoethical activities while planning the development of mining districts is the main subject of the geoethical activity. The participation of mining districts in the regional planning is easily visible.

The basic difference in the activity methods (though, in fact, they aim at the same objective) exists between the activity of ecologists who replace planning by immediate activity and geoethicians who plan to achieve the prospective objectives. This difference in the activity methods becomes sometimes the source of conflicts.

The conflicts are easily visible when ecologists get involved in the protection of nature with a delay and they do not allow to start production in the newly opened plants. Such a procedure is a definite waste of investment means which must evoke opposition. If the ecologists’ interference is to be considered, they must be notified at an early stage of the investment process. Only then they have a change of realization and when geoethicians fail in their motivation, the ecologists’ sanctions may be considered ( the solution of the last chance).

Geoethical processes concern also the proper idea of realizing the exploitation of natural resources. Complete utilization of the mineral bed at the time of its exploitation is the essence of the realization of exploitation ( not allowing for gophering). This refers both to the amount and quality of the exploited useful mineral. It refers, in particular, to a bed of high quality which should not be exploited in the case when the exploitation of a bed of inferior quality is satisfactory.

Besides the protection of the bed at the time of its exploitation, we should also exploit the open beds of accompanying minerals whose exploitation after the exploitation of the main mineral is not taken into consideration for economic reasons.

The vicinity of the mine should be protected when minimizing the mining damages by an appropriate exploitation method. This problem is onnected with the tendency to increase the work safety. It is achieved by concentration of blasting, i .e. a possibly great compensation of seismic vibrations harmful for the environment. The cumulation of blasting helps to limit the number of firings what decreases the number of accidents to a considerable degree.

It is not always consistent with the practice of mining offices which, aiming to increase in work safety, tend to deconcentrate blastings thus they produce a completely different effect. Such are the results of the lack of confidence for theoretical considerations.

The basic task for geoethics is to avoid the following threats during the exploitation process:

· water threats

· collapses

· bursts

· thermal threats

· gas threats

· fire threats

The above mentioned topics are being developed in separate reports.

Above all, planning of mining districts - as already mentioned - is fundamental for geoethical activities.

When applying the above presented principles, conflicts can be avoided and then the cooperation can effectively bring about the expected results.

Finally, after all these general considerations, I would like to quote the truth formulated by Professor Walery Goetel, the founder of Polish ecology: „Only industry can repair what it has destroyed in the nature“. This means that cooperation between ecologists and industry is the condition for such an activity. However this cooperation can be hardly expected when industry is regularly accused by ecologists and prosecuted by legal sanctions. The question is whether it is worthwhile giving up the rigidly applied formalism to create conditions for harmonious cooperation.

However , I am an optimist believing that such cooperation must be achieved when it becomes the only successful solution of these complicated problems in connection with the densification of population in industrial districts.

Remark of the Editor: For the term “ecology” the author has used in the Polish original the word “sozology”. V.N.