The Chad River borders Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria and Chad in Africa and these nations depend upon it for drinking water and agriculture. In the last 40 years Lake Chad has shrunk 90 percent and it is estimated that unless action is taken, it could disappear in the next twenty years. The people inhabiting this region are already impoverished and the loss of their water source will only make their situation worse. The United Nations has finally recognized that “..a humanitarian disaster looms due to the shrinking of the lake and this must be urgently addressed (Castelfranco 2009).” Since experts have recognized the magnitude of this problem, they are currently trying to determine the best way to mitigate some of this damage. In order to get a full grasp of the degree of this problem, it is very important to look at it from all ethical points of view.
The continuous shrinking of Lake Chad poses both a humanitarian and ecological disaster. There are currently millions of people living in the lake basin and 30 to 40 million of these people have already been affected by the loss of this freshwater source. In light of the demarcation problem, we must decide what factors are and aren’t important. The millions of people who are affected by the shrinking of Lake Chad, definitely rank high in terms of importance, as does the entire ecosystem as a whole. The lake is undoubtably home to a number of species, and there are most likely terrestrial animals other than humans who rely on the Lake as their primary water source. It would be ethically wrong to allow these millions of people to suffer through this and do nothing to try to mitigate the damage. The article does offer a solution to part of this problem, as suggested by Parviz Koohafkan, the director of Land and Water division at the FAO:
"Helping the local communities to better use resources, through participatory approach, through development, through capacity building, through helping them in coping with water scarcity, with land degradation, development projects but particularly in investment," (Castelfranco 2009).
Everyone would benefit from this type of education and regulation, including the citizens who rely on Lake Chad, and the ecosystem. It would even help the economy, because so many people rely on Lake Chad for agricultural purposes. These people already live in such impoverished conditions, that this might not have an enormous impact on their standard of living economically, but in terms of basic human rights they require this water and it should be made available to them.
Deontologically, the outcome of preserving Lake Chad is of no importance. From this viewpoint it is important to take action because we are duty bound to help our fellow human beings. These people are very vulnerable and cannot do very much on their own to improve their situation. From this ethical viewpoint, we recognize that these people require our assistance in order to survive this ecological disaster and we grant it to them. It would be wrong not to help our fellow human beings despite whether or not the outcome of preserving a lake is something that is ethically agreed with.
Consequentially, the same action should be taken- that of working to help preserve Lake Chad. It is ethically right to preserve the lake, and by preserving the lake we assist both the organisms who inhabit it and the people who rely on it for their livelihood. The action is right and the consequence is a positive one, therefore consequentialists would work to help preserve Lake Chad
Another possible solution to this problem that has been suggested is to transfer water from the Lake Congo basin to the Lake Chad basin. Deontologically, this route may not be supported as the act of taking water from one basin is not right. It could be compared to stealing water from one to give it to another which is not ethically supported by this viewpoint. Consequentialists may be split over such a suggestion. Doing this could help save Lake Chad, a consequence they would fully support, but it might also degrade the Lake Congo basin which is something that would not be supported by them. Of course this would not be done without extensive research into its feasibility, if it was believed to be feasible, then consequentialists would most likely support this decision.
In Castelfranco’s article, she presents a serious problem- the depletion of Lake Chad water levels and offers possible solutions to it. Though this is effective, she does not explain the situation from different ethical viewpoints. Saving Lake Chad may seem like the straightforward solution to many people, but to others it may be a difficult choice to make given the many different ethical viewpoints that exist today.
Sources:
Castelfranco, Sabina. Experts Look for Ways to Save Lake Chad, (2009). Voice of America, http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-16-voa22.cfm
-Elisabeth Shapiro
I liked how you introduced the problem in the first couple paragraphs and then the action in your quote. That way the reader can keep going back to the solution as various viewpoints are discussed. I’m not sure exactly where you choose to draw the line between morally significant and not, but that is likely because conserving water in Lake Chad will benefit all aspects. It is great to find a solution that so easily benefits humans, animals, plants and ecosystems alike. Also, I’m glad you included the second option for preserving Lake Chad because it shows how consequentialist and non-consequentialist views can often oppose each other.
ReplyDelete- Amy Adair