Open Letter to People of Planet Earth in 2050

Dear children, grandchildren and people of planet earth, year 2050

It is incumbent upon me, on behalf of many millions of concerned inhabitants of Planet Earth in 2010, to explain some of the reasons why our society has acted selfishly and is leaving our planet and human civilisation in such poor condition, to the detriment of you—our progeny and the planet’s future inhabitants. We have abrogated our ethical responsibility to future generations to enhance the human condition and care for this planet that we share in time. We have been ineffective in addressing population issues, unsustainable resource use and climate change. Our civilisation is still encumbered with social, religious and political instability arising from intolerance, and despite improvements, there is an inequitable distribution of wealth and many individuals have a poor quality of life.

It is important for you to recognise that in recent times many people and governments have worked hard to implement initiatives that have led to economic, environmental and social progress, resulting in generally better lives for people living in developed countries. You would be aware of our technological developments, and some initiatives that have led to a better human and planetary condition, and of these we are justifiably proud. It would however be impolitic for us to revel in these achievements, when we have irresponsibly neglected to address some fundamental problems.

People and Population

In 2010 Planet Earth currently has over 6.8 billion people (or 6.8 Gigapeople—I expect you would have eliminated the non-standard use of prefixes in 2050). As you would appreciate, this population, and its current growth rate, is not sustainable given the earth’s resources. If this growth continues unabated, then the human population in 2050 could be about 9 Gigapeople, exacerbating our population-induced problems. While our scientists have improved food production technologies, its distribution and availability is inequitable. Many millions, particularly those in developing countries, live in abysmal conditions and many of them die from malnutrition and disease. Many, including indigenous peoples, live with unclean water and inadequate food, pitiful health standards and poor educational opportunities. If our society had any humanity and dignity for our fellow humans we would address this problem as a matter of utmost urgency. But the problem remains. The situation is no better for legitimate refugees, whose access to welfare has been strangled by ineffective world bureaucracies. These bureaucracies are often elected by people who have a healthy obsession for their own well-being, but selfishly have substantially less regard for their fellow humans and species on this planet. We have the capacity to address these problems, but have failed to do so.

Unfortunately, the lot of the disadvantaged is unlikely to improve when some people and governments openly promote population growth. Some governments provide financial incentives to encourage population growth according to the tenet that economic growth will occur with population growth, without any consideration of long-term sustainability. Some religions, especially those conceived by ignorant minds in antiquity, encourage excessive procreation and rally against birth control, to the extent where perversely, they oppose the use of condoms that could prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Some religions also deny women rights to their own bodies by opposing abortion, and deny the terminally ill rights to their own bodies by opposing voluntary euthanasia, meaning that many people inhumanely suffer indignity, pain and suffering in the final stages of their lives. I would suspect that people in 2050 would respect that people have individual rights and the right to live and die as they wish. In 2010, 80% of people in more enlightened countries support voluntary euthanasia, but most of the current political leaders do their best to deny these rights. It is embarrassing to admit that many of our political leaders do not have the leadership skills and moral fortitude to stand up for what is right, and instead they have succumbed to the pressure applied by mainly religious leaders and zealots.

Many of these religions irrationally discriminate against people based on their sex, sexual preference and belief system. Governments with weak political leadership irrationally reward these discriminatory and intolerant religions and their business enterprises with substantial tax concessions. Although many religious people have good intentions, they have been indoctrinated. They do not object then when their religions continue to indoctrinate children with their values and unethically impose these values on others. You would understand the hypocrisy of religious people imposing values on others, diminishing the capacity of other people to control their lives, when these religious people do not want others to do this to them. This denial of equality has indirectly established intolerance and mistrust of other peoples and nations as a defining and regrettable characteristic of our current and previous generations.

Two consequences of this intolerance are war, which dominates security considerations now as it has throughout recorded history, and terrorism, which has emerged as a new threat to peaceful civilisations. Mutual mistrust amongst nations generally means that the defence budgets of the economically more powerful nations are obscene in their profligacy. This should not be the case, when we, as the inhabitants of a pale blue dot in an insignificant galaxy, should be coexisting in harmony so that all our lives can be best they can be. Instead, this intolerance has resulted in social and physical conflict and thwarted attempts to progress to a more ethical, humanist society.

Unfortunately, the United Nations does not have the influence and authority that an international body of its stature ought to command in improving the human condition and resolving international disputes. The United Nations is often felled by bureaucracy in the provision of goods and assistance to those in most need. Politically powerful nations can veto any major progressive or ethical initiatives for their own selfish nationalistic reasons. Democracy has its strengths, but it is our experience that nationalistic economic and political objectives are sometimes given more credence than the attainment of ethical and humanist goals.

Resources and Environment

We need to consider how humans can establish and maintain a high quality of life, live fulfilling and ethically good lives, and continue to sustainably use resources and act in an environmentally responsible manner over the next thousands of years. Many nations and people seem to have thoughtlessly left it in the ‘too hard’ basket, when it should be the responsibility of all humans to ensure that the planets on which we exist are effectively and efficiently maintained for later generations.

We continue to use hydrocarbons, including oils, to provide most of our energy needs. Despite the fact that these are finite resources and their combustion releases products that exacerbate global warming, too little effort has been expended on developing alternative renewable energy sources.

In addition to fuels, it is highly likely that many valuable metals will no longer be available to you, especially if predicted new technologies appear, developing economies evolve quickly, and the population grows at current or greater rates. Supplies of a number of metals could be exhausted in 2050, and despite efforts to recycle materials, not all resources are fully recyclable. Without technological advancements, the achievement of which can be imagined but not presumed, your capacity to generate energy, distribute food, provide emergency services and undertake everyday commerce will be severely impaired because of our preoccupation with our own lives.

Humans’ rapacious use of resources is not unrelated to the issue of human-induced climate change. While the planet’s scientific community has been proclaiming the dangers of global warming for many years, there is either intransigence to acknowledge the scientific evidence (often by those who reject scientific theories generally, perhaps because some scientific theories challenge their religious beliefs), or a lack of action, due to short-sighted national self-interest (‘why should we act on climate change when others are not doing anything’). This uncooperative and unethical approach has manifested itself in a lack of commitment from political leaders to definitive action. Again, too many politicians lack the political and moral fortitude to lead and act on an issue because it is the right thing to do, independent of religious, commercial and short-term interests. Real leadership is required, and with few exceptions, it has been found wanting. Is it not sad that the only reason some want to act on a fundamental issue of importance to the planet is because of what others may or may not do? This short-term approach must evolve into a broader, more holistic response if humans are to continue to live in harmony with other species on this planet.

Hope for the future

In 2010, governments are primarily concerned with increasing economic growth without any overriding imperative to leave the planet in a fit state for future generations. Some understand that the human race will not survive on this planet unless we can coexist in a sustainable manner, and move beyond any preoccupation with material goods. People must understand, governments must understand, but the education process is slow.

We however, expect you to understand. Please do not do unto the people of 2100 what we are doing unto you. You should learn from our mistakes, although we, as a society, have not learnt as much as we should have from our forefathers. We cannot reasonably be considered as ‘civilised’ when human misery and conflict and environment degradation are commonplace. It is our planet, our home, and all of our lives have been and will be adversely affected by this generation’s selfishness and intransigence.

Please reflect on us historically knowing that many people tried to make the world a better place. You would be aware that the problems that you will inherit from us would suggest that we have failed to adequately address these and provide for you, our children and grandchildren. We are sorry. Your obligation to future generations is to not make the same mistakes that we have made.

As we all have one life, may each of yours be fulfilling and ethically good.

David Swanton

Concerned human being.

2010

David Swanton is a Canberra-based ethicist and scientist (see www.ethicalrights.com)

Euthanasia is a rational and humane cause

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10407

By David Swanton Posted Tuesday, 11 May 2010 in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Euthanasia is an issue that divides societies, although it enjoys 80 per cent popular support in Australia and Britain. The issue, however, should be clear. If individuals have the right to their own lives, then euthanasia should be legalised.

The term “voluntary euthanasia” is often used by the state-based Voluntary Euthanasia and Dying with Dignity Associations around Australia and emphasises the voluntary nature of euthanasia. Another definition defines euthanasia as a deliberate act intended to cause the death of the patient, at that patient’s request, for what he or she sees as being in his/her best interests, and clearly euthanasia’s voluntary nature is implicit in this definition.

Regardless of how euthanasia is defined, most of the opposition to euthanasia comes from people who have religious motives and imply that euthanasia is not voluntary, that people would be coerced into a decision. It is precisely the voluntary nature of euthanasia that makes it ethically right.

Many elderly Australians are now choosing to take control of their lives, seeking information and developing their own end-of-life solutions.

Exit International, Dr Philip Nitshcke’s euthanasia advocacy organisation, provides accurate and concise information about end-of-life choices. Its long-term goal is responsible and ethical law reform, such as the Swiss model of decriminalising assisted suicide. The media has reported on terminally ill Australians travelling overseas to access euthanasia through the Swiss legislation, travelling overseas to acquire suitable lethal drugs, or attempting to manufacture drugs to have something in the medicine cabinet - just in case their illness worsens. These people are not mass murderers; they are ordinary (usually elderly) Australians who want control of their lives. It is regrettable that Australians are forced to do this because of the absence of an Australian legislative regime.

People who would choose to have voluntary euthanasia are concerned about their dignity and quality of life, rather than the extension of their life if this involves unnecessary pain, suffering and indignity. If those who oppose euthanasia wish to have unnecessary pain, suffering and indignity, then they may do so. That is everybody’s choice. But euthanasia opponents must not deny others that choice and arrogantly insist, often though sustained pressure for legislative opposition to euthanasia, that others too must suffer.

In 2009, a landmark decision in Western Australia's Supreme Court gave Christian Rossiter, a Perth quadriplegic, the right to refuse food from his care provider on the condition he understood the consequences of his actions. He said that "It's comforting to know that when you say you're going to starve yourself to death no one's going to come along in the night when you've lost consciousness and keep you alive to suffer a bit longer."

This court decision has however posed the following intriguing question. If people have the right to refuse food and die; starving to death over a couple of weeks is inhumane; and societies should not allow people to die inhumanely, then shouldn’t it be reasonable for parliaments to develop a legislative regime for euthanasia to allow people to die humanely and with dignity?

It is difficult to comprehend how many politicians could ignore, or at least fail to act in response to, the incredibly moving and very sad story of Angelique Flowers, the 31-year-old writer who recently died after years of Crohn’s disease and then agonising bowel cancer. She had good palliative care, but it did not alleviate her suffering. Nobody should have to suffer to the extent she did, and vomit faecal matter at the end, but she did. That she had to suffer that way could drive many other Australians to an early demise, in fear, not of death, but of unbearable pain and suffering.

The Pope’s arrogant statement that the ill should pray to find “the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God” is meaningless to those who do not believe in a god, and to many who do. One might suspect that Angelique Flowers would have been very unimpressed, and that most would classify the Pope’s stance as inhumane.

In her eloquent video appeal to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, which was forwarded to him by Dr Nitschke, Angelique said that “all I want after 16 years of painful Crohn’s disease and now cancer is to die a pain-free peaceful death”. “Because euthanasia was banned in Australia I am denied this right …” Further she said “the law wouldn’t let a dog suffer the agony I’m going through before an inevitable death. It would be put down. Yet under the law, my life is worth less than a dog’s.” Sadly, Kevin Rudd did not respond to the video.

Politicians should consider heartfelt appeals such as that of Angelique Flowers. We cannot, as a civilised society, continue to let people suffer when they are in the most desperate of situations. The large majority of Australians are dissatisfied with the denial of the right to die and the continued intransigence and reluctance of many politicians to support terminally ill Australians. All we need is more politicians with compassion, legislative skills and courage to ensure that individuals have the right to live, and end, their lives with dignity. This is a right that Angelique Flowers was denied. No Australians should have to suffer as she did.

Competent legislators/politicians should be able to develop an effective legislative system for euthanasia. However, Kevin Rudd has been unable to confirm when debate would occur on Greens Senator Bob Brown’s private member’s bill originally introduced a couple of years ago. Senator Brown’s Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2008 would give territory governments the same powers as state governments to legislate for voluntary euthanasia if they wished. Until this Bill is debated in the Parliament, territories are unable to move forward on euthanasia. Whether they vote for euthanasia in their jurisdictions will of course depend on the competence of their legislators and the will of the electorate, but they should at least have the right to enact euthanasia legislation.

Mr Rudd said some time ago that he wouldn't comment on a suggestion euthanasia was already being practised illegally in Australia (Sydney Morning Herald, May 2, 2008). Avoiding the issue doesn’t make it go away.

The Australian Opposition Leader, a devout Catholic, is just as obstinate in his opposition to euthanasia. Politicians who do not act to alleviate the suffering of Australians are arrogantly imposing their personal views on other Australians. It is interesting that when issues such as euthanasia are debated in parliaments, politicians are not required to adopt a party-political position, and are instead allowed to vote according to their “conscience”. It would be hypocritical for anti-euthanasia politicians to vote to impose their religious values on Australians when they would not accept a party-political position being imposed on them. If politicians demand choice (in voting), then they should allow ordinary Australians choice on euthanasia.

I imagine even religious politicians would like to have the choice of dying like Angelique Flowers or having a more peaceful and dignified death. They should not however be allowed to choose for others. Euthanasia is about individual choice and dignity, and for that reason it is a rational and humane cause. Until parliaments have the courage and commitment to act and provide that choice, ordinary Australians will continue to take matters into their own hands.

David Swanton is a Canberra-based ethicist and scientist (see www.ethicalrights.com).

He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.