If the world is going through drastic changes threatening the survival of biodiversity, proven to be human caused, then it is our responsibility to fix what we have broken. International governments should fund the research for alternative forms of energy, give citizens tax breaks to buy greener products, and penalize companies who dump waste and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The health of the environment is currently not in a dire state, but if we keep with the destructive behaviors, the world will be in trouble. Overpopulation is accelerating the rate in which the environment is being destroyed.
In order to build shelter for the growing populations, most countries have had to clear rainforest’s destroying the trees which help in the arbor cycle. With so many rainforest’s destroyed, many animals which depend on it for survival are becoming extinct and vanishing at rates never before seen in Human history. Actions like the destruction of the rainforest’s around the world speak volumes about the value we give our natural environment to the value we place on material possessions and the advancement of human standard of living.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Prior to this course, I was convinced we humans had developed an unsustainable form of life with little care for the biotic community, which is critical for our survival as a species. Furthermore, in adding to my thoughts about the environment prior to this course, I felt we were moving in the right direction in regards to legislation to combat global environmental deterioration. Why was this the case? I believed the public was demanding that environmental sissies be one of the major important talking points in National debate, and enough dialogue was being performed to garner enough recognition of the issues at hand.
After doing some of the reading in, A companion To Environmental Philosophy, I began to see changes in my perspective. In any” developed” country, the main component of the economy depends n individuals, acting as consumers, buying more products than are actually needed for survival. In “The land ethic”, calotte addresses this issue when he states that, ” having the bare necessities for a decent life is a stronger interest than is the enjoyment of luxuries,” and it is therefore the duty of the people who have more, ” to help supply’ children of the less fortunate with the bare essentials for survival ( Calotte 212).
Calotte comes to this conclusion through Loophole’s, “Second-order principle-2″, which states ” that a stronger interests generate duties that take precedence over duties generated by eager interest’ (Calotte 212). When put into the Environmental debate, SOP-2 supports the argument that advocates human interest (stronger interest) above the interest of the environment (weaker interest). If we go by the logic of this theory, then overproducing to elevate the standard of living of humans at the expense of clean air, trees, and the overall well being of the environment, is completely justifiable.
This of course depends if you regard human interest above the interest of the world. Tend to see the immediate need of humans above the immediate need of the environment, but when oaken into the long run, I see the need of the environment as more important. Humans do depend on other humans for survival but only to a certain point. On the contrary, we humans depend on the environment for almost everything and realizing this is what is important.
During our development and evolution as species, we as humans were believed to be the supreme beings on this earth, therefore domination of land was not only correct but necessary for our advancement as a specie. Certainly this is how it happened throughout history, and this is how justified the destruction of forests for housing, paper, lumber and so forth. Names and Sessions’ formulation which gives the natural biotic community intrinsic value made me change my opinion and rethink my ethic. Before, I had what was called an ” anthropocentric, or human-centered, attitude” that sees the world ” .. Only valued only to the extent that it serves as a resource for us (Mathews 222). According to them, we have to change our way of viewing ourselves as higher beings to beings who are simply part of a greater, more complicated web in the biotic community. In other words, the ideological shift from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric, where nature has intrinsic value will SSH for a new ethic where the environment is held at higher esteem. Deep ecology advocates this by stressing, ” the ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life…. Ether than increasing standard of living (Mathews 223). If we take life for what it is, life, without all the added material things, deep ecologist believe people will begin to appreciate the world a lot more. I am in aggregate with the deep ecology approach because it serves to change a mentality which revolved around selfishness, greed, and elitism. With thinking like this paradigm more people will take on the approach, “let nature-be” for hat it is and just learn to appreciate it instead of deteriorate it (Mathews 223).
Moreover, I began this course with little to no philosophical experience on the different ethical approaches to environmental issue. I have written about the two which have made me change my stance on the Environment. For starters, I believed the environment was given to us and it was our duty to use it to our liking. However, in modern times, the world has reached a dire state where degradation of any more ecosystems will leave humans with huge problems in the near future. So how can simply progress any further without harming earth?
Well it seems to me that we need to follow some of the approaches of deep ecology and the land ethic. I have to be more considerate for what already have and know when enough luxuries are enough, and learn how to love a modest life with only essentials for survival. The issue of standard of living is inevitable, but compromises must happen. Lastly, my thinking Of the Environment has been challenged by these theories which are appealing and very elaborate. In conclusion however, realized not one single theory will solve the environmental problems the world faces, but perhaps they can eventually lead to one in the future.