Chuo KoronMay 1995 :pp.76-84
The Human Natures and Modern Civilization
Masahiro Morioka
Life Studies Translation Project
Translated by "Felix" v(^o^)
Not So Bad Version 0.012
Date : 2000/10/12
Conservation / Preservation
  Because consideration on our lives or nature describes to us clearly the problems which our civilization involves fatally, it can lead us to a fine observatory of our civilization. There is no end to the number of dilemmas, contradictions and disorders - such as uproars about ecology or the global environment, bioethics, welfare for the aged and so on. A mass of modern problems on our lives and nature is a fine mirror which reflects our wandering at the dead end. And we can find the desires or human natures reflected in the mirror, which are deep in our lives.
  My short article, "The Two Human Natures - To conjugate environmental ethics with bioethics -" (published in a Japanese quarterly magazine Bukkyo*1 No.27), received favorable reviews last year*2. Many discussions about this point since then reminded me that there lies quite a profound problem inwardly. I will show here the figure of modern civilization by analying the human natures.

  The first theme is the relationship between humans and nature. It reaches frequently our ears by the grace of a buzzword "ecology" that human beings have a dark future because modern industrial civilization has spoiled the natural environment terribly. [end of p.76] Now, here is a question. Why shoud we protect nature? What is the reason for it? Environmental ethics furnishes two different answers, conservation and preservation. And behind these two answers there are completely different ideas on nature.
  Conservationists should answer the question in this way:

If they doesn't protect nature, they will face many crises in the future. They will be forced to live worse lives. In the worst case, they may become extinct. So, they must protect nature.
The point is that human beings protect nature not to fall into critical condition. It is the protection of nature for humans' own sake. It is anthropocentric (or human-centered) protection.
  On the contrary, preservationists should answer in this way:
The reason they protect nature is not for human beings. Nothing can take the place of the primeval forests which have grown for thousands years, or the network of lives in fertile nature. They must not dispose of irreplaceable and fertile nature as tools for our daily lives. They should respect wonderful nature and keep our hands off, if possible.
The point is that human beings should protect nature because it is very worthy and irreplaceable in itself. In short, nature should be protected whether it has merits for human beings or not. It is the protection of nature for its own sake. It is biocentric (or life-centered) protection.
  These two views, conservation and preservation, are understandable logically because these exist inside ourselves.. We often explain the importance of nature protection with these views. But these two views are diametrically opposite. [end of p.77] You may ask conservationists and preservationists how you should do in order to protect valuable primeval forests, for example. The conservationists tell you to build logging roads, sweep out surplus wood and keep their spectacles. But the preservationists tell you to let forests be as sanctuaries. There lies serious antagonism between these two views because it comes from oppositions on the human nature level.

Support in expectation of returns / Support out of pity
  The second theme is the social welfare works. We can find the same contradiction in social welfare here, although the way of conflict is different. The aging society is coming up to Japan with full speed. A quarter of the Japanese will be over 65 years old in 2025. The Japanese must construct a social system which the healthy people who has enough energy can support the lives of the aged, the disabled and the sick so that the Japanese social system will work in the 21st century. Few will object to the ideal of mutual support society. But human beings are very selfish. Can we construct such an altruistic social system? What in the world makes us help others or support each other? What is the motive? Two contradictory views are intermingled in the answer to these questions. One is the idea of support in expectation of returns (or selfish one*3), the other is is support out of pity (or altruistic one).
  The former, the selfish idea of support, says that the reason why a person helps others in trouble is that the person expects returns from them when that person is in trouble. We can put it more sophisticated words like this:
Does one who help others in trouble expect that they will help him/her in his/her trouble ? No, he/she does not.. He/She expects help by someone, not by the very person whom he/she helped, because someone will help him/her in trouble, if the custom or rule of mutual support has taken root in his/her society.
We use this logic when we talk about the necessity of welfare for the aged. For example, " Create aged-friendly society now, or you will be misery when you are aged." The point is that those who are kind to others are sure to be rewarded. (In Japanese, "Nasake wa hito no tamenarazu.")

The latter, the altruistic idea of support, says in the opposite way.

We sometimes help others in trouble because we want to ease their hardship as much as possible. After the Hanshin - Awaji Earthquake*4, many young volunteers assembled there to support earthquake victims. [end of p.78] Young volunteers didn't support them in expectation of returns, but could not help doing so.
If we encounter a suffering boy sitting in a crouch, we unconsciously ask him if he is all right. This is our altruistic idea of support. The essence is "feeling of pity." (In Japanese,"Sokuin no Jo"*5)
Because these two ideas of support normally coexist in our minds, we can think about social welfare in both ways. But it is worth noticing that these two ideas work under fundamentally different principles. The idea of creating a society full of securities and welfare so as not to be misery when we are aged is one thing. The idea of helping people suffering in front of us out of pity is another. These two ideas are fundamentally different.

(To be continued...)
[Footnotes by translator]
  1. The word "Bukkyo" means Buddhism. ( Back )
  2. Original Japanese article was written in 1995, so this "last year" means the year 1994.( Back )
  3. The word "selfish" may be inappropriate. This phrase means "mutual support" or "give and take" ,not "egoistic"..( Back )
  4. A magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit Hanshin area (around Kobe city, south in Hyogo prefecture near Osaka) at 17 Jan 1995. About 6,000 lives were lost and more than 40,000 people were injured. ( Back )
 Back to Morioka's International Network for Life Studies(in English)
Updated : 12 Oct. 2000 by Felix
Top