Matteo Pietropaoli

Intergenerational Justice through the Rejection of Western Heritage

Introduction

Intergenerational justice through the rejection of western heritage. Explore intergenerational & climate justice by examining the rejection of Western heritage. Analyzes degrowth, overpopulation, and cultural shifts for a livable future.

Abstract

This work intends to address the issue of intergenerational and climate justice in the context of a possible rejection, mainly at a socio-cultural level, of the Western heritage. Starting from the reflections on the theme of the Anthropocene and of a new conception of human responsibility, different from that primarily linked to individual freedom, here we propose to analyze three aspects of this possible rejection, which together can contribute to fostering the mitigation of climate change and a livable future for the new generations. The first aspect is cultural transition from post-materialistic to materialistic values, The second one concerns the issue of contrasting overpopulation, and the third one, to be pursued jointly with the others, is that of “degrowth”, above all in terms of consumption. All these aspects, which must be fostered both on a cultural and institutional level, make up a process that we consider to be already underway and which we believe will allow a sort of intergenerational justice and a planetary future far from the most extreme consequences for humanity, from lack of livability to extinction.

Review

This paper tackles the highly ambitious and timely topic of intergenerational and climate justice through a critical lens, proposing the rejection of Western heritage as a pathway to a livable future. The overarching aim to connect the Anthropocene, human responsibility beyond individual freedom, and tangible actions like degrowth is commendable and points to a desire for a radical reimagining of societal priorities. The abstract sets out a clear, albeit broad, agenda, identifying three key areas—cultural transition, overpopulation, and degrowth—that the authors believe are already shaping a necessary shift. The paper’s willingness to challenge established paradigms, particularly concerning Western socio-cultural norms, provides a potentially thought-provoking foundation for discussion. However, the proposed mechanisms for achieving these goals present several critical ambiguities and potential contradictions that require substantial clarification. Firstly, the "cultural transition from post-materialistic to materialistic values" is particularly perplexing. If interpreted literally, shifting *towards* materialism seems counterintuitive to climate mitigation and degrowth, which typically advocate for reduced consumption and a re-evaluation of material acquisition. This point needs rigorous definition and justification, as it appears to contradict the very spirit of the paper's ambition. Secondly, while "contrasting overpopulation" is raised, the abstract offers no indication of how this ethically complex and sensitive issue will be addressed, raising questions about the proposed strategies. Lastly, while degrowth is a relevant concept, its integration with the preceding points, especially the puzzling shift to materialistic values, needs a clearer theoretical framework to ensure internal consistency. The bold claims about an "already underway" process leading to a "planetary future far from... extinction" require far more robust theoretical and empirical grounding than is suggested by the abstract alone. The link between the undefined "rejection of Western heritage" and the proposed solutions remains largely abstract, necessitating a more precise identification of which specific aspects of Western heritage are detrimental and how their rejection directly facilitates the outlined transitions. A more nuanced discussion of the ethical implications of strategies like "overpopulation control" and the broad generalizations about "Western heritage" would also significantly strengthen the paper's scholarly contribution. While the ambition is high, the clarity, consistency, and ethical considerations of the proposed solutions need considerable development to move beyond a provocative thesis to a robust argument.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.