Anthropocentrism and Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

?Gaia: Our Life Force Gaia refers to the life force that makes up our biosphere, and how everything on the earth - from the one-celled protozoa to the enormous blue whale – acts collectively and coordinates to produce the optimum conditions for the continuation of life on earth. There is a totality, an ecosystem, and it all works together to sustain life. It’s like the circle of life – predators ensure that certain species of animals do not grow too prevalent that would destroy the ecosystem, and animals provide food for these predators. The biosphere produces just the right temperature for the earth. The mechanism for the stability of the temperature on earth is sustained by biological components. Everything works together in synergy (Lovelock, 1979). The Gaia theory may imply that our world is fragile – that, because the harmony of the living things on this world is what continues to sustain the earth, if there is an imbalance caused by man’s plunder, then the earth may cease to exist. But Lovelock (1979) has a different idea about this. Gaia is robust, which means that life will always exist in some form, even if the life forms on earth are reduced to ants and algae. Nevertheless, whether or not man can survive an upset in the ecosystem is another story – man destroys large swaths of the rainforest and the oceans, which, in turn, means that trillions of micro-organisms which are necessary for the stability of the composition of the atmosphere are endangered. Yet our earth has sustained severe injury in the past – such as the accumulation of corrosive and toxic gas oxygen two billion years ago – and survived it (Grey, 1980). Because Gaia is predicated upon the synergy of all living things, in spite of what Lovelock (1979) states about the robustness of the theory of Gaia, it still appears that there needs to be a certain synergy for human life to exist. Life, in some form, may always exist on this planet, and certainly, if humans destroy the ecosystem to the point where the earth becomes uninhabitable for the human species, and we die out, then the less complex life forms will repopulate – there would be no humans left to plunder the earth. However, this, of course, is not ideal, because it would mean our extinction. Therefore, there is a need for a different environmental ethic than the one that we have – according to Sylvan (1973), the dominant Western ethic is that the world is ours to spoil. Yet, life affects the regulation of the earth’s system (Lenton, 2002). This is important, because regulation is essential for persistence of systems – systems which are unregulated tend not to survive, whereas regulated systems do survive. Lenton (2002) posits that there are biotic effects which might push our earth towards the boundaries of tolerability, beyond which life would not be sustainable. When this occurs, Mother Nature tends to push back. Our species is disruptive to the delicate Gaia, and this might result in a change in the Earth that would not be beneficial for the human race, but might be beneficial to the Earth as a whole. For instance, according to Lenton (2002), some 2 billion years ago, atmospheric oxygen rose, which was considered to be a catastrophe. However, while this change killed off much of the existing life during this period of time, it opened the door for new life – the obligate anaerobes were affected detrimentally, but other life forms were able to emerge. Conclusion It appears that we must have more respect for nature and what we are doing which might affect our delicate ecosystem. Our Western ethos sticks to the belief that nature is here for our disposal: the rainforest exists for us to cut down the trees, animals exist for us to kill, and our natural resources exist for us to use. Gaia theory provides the incentive to not do this as much. If we chop down the rainforest, then, not only will we have fewer trees, but the species that live in the rainforest will become extinct. The species that live in the rainforest are a part of the Gaia collective, so their extinction might have negative ramifications on the ecosystem as a whole, and the planet in general. Our actions are increasingly causing the extinction of colonies of honey bees – this is being caused by habitat loss, pollution, disease and pest invasion (Herrmann, 2011). Considering that bees pollinate 70 percent of the 100 crop species that provides 90% of our global food supply, the loss of bees could be catastrophic for the human species. Achim Steiner, who is the UN Undersecretary-General, states that bees are essential for our survival and that the loss of the bees threatens “our collective future” (Herrmann, 2011). Therefore, this is another way that our actions threaten a part of our ecosystem, which, in turn, threatens us all. Humans must be more cognizant of how we are destroying our earth – with the Western ethos that plundering of the earth and our animals is our destiny; it has been increasingly shown that this is a short-sighted way of looking at things. Whether the issue is making species extinct, which negatively affects specific ecosystems, which, in turn, means that the Gaia balance is disturbed, or whether the issue is the fact that honey bees are dying, which would have negative impacts on our food supply, it is clear that we must have more respect for nature. For, without respecting nature, nature will destroy us. References Grey, W. (July 5, 1980) Gaia Theory well aired. The Canberra Times, p. 14. Herrmann, L. (March 11, 2011) Report: World bee declines signals ‘sixth major extinction,’ Digital Journal. Lenton, T. (2002) Testing Gaia: The effect of life on earth’s habitability and regulation, Climatic Change, vol. 52, pp. 409-422. Lenton, T. & Wilkinson, D. (2003) Developing: The Gaia Theory. Climatic Change, vol. 58, pp. 1-12. Sylvan, R. (1973) Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic? Proceedings of the XII World Congress of Philosophy, No. 1, pp. 205-210. Global Warming Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth shows that global warming exists. Global warming is caused by trapped greenhouse gases. These gases are necessary in one sense, in that, if they did not exist, then warm air would escape into the atmosphere, and our planet would be too cool. However, we have too much of these gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), which means that our planet is getting too warm. The primary source of this excess CO2 is fossil fuels. Cutting down forests is another factor (Guggenheim, 2006). Other scientists concur with this analysis. Oreskes is one of such scientists. She states (2004) that the only voices who are doubting climate change are those who are not reliable or biased in any way. Crowley (2000) answers the global warming skeptics who note that the earth has naturally heated up and cooled through eons of time. Crowley (2000) states that, while this is true, and that there are natural occurrences which might clause global warming – solar flares and volcanic activity among these occurrences – these natural occurrences only can account for some 20% of the temperature changes that the earth has experienced since the industrial age. As Al Gore notes, climate change is responsible for a multitude of maladies. Everything from melting glaciers, increasing wildfires, the death of the coral reefs, and the rising of the seas threatens our very existence. Therefore, the issue of climate change is a moral one, as well as a technological and biological one. It is immoral to plunder our earth and our resources so much that our planet is warming, which is causing environmental issues around the world. Moreover, if the sea levels continue to rise, then this threatens coastal towns, which would be underwater with the rise of the sea. This would displace millions of people. It is immoral for the animals who are devastated by climate change – such as the polar bears who swim for miles, trying to find an ice floe, and being unable to, which means that they often drown. It is immoral to leave our children a world that is experiencing hazards that are due to climate change. It is immoral to ignore climate change, because climate change has been linked to devastating weather patterns, such as increased numbers of hurricanes (Guggenheim, 2006). More hurricanes means more loss of life and property. It is selfish and immoral for our leaders to ignore the problem, because the issue of climate change, and the regulations that must be put into place so that climate change will be lessened, it somehow bad for industry. There is no consensus on how to combat climate change. Jacobsen (2010) proposes the use of voluntary carbon offsets and the use of campaigns to raise awareness. Voluntary carbon offsets work by allowing individuals and groups to make a financial contribution that offsets their carbon emissions. The monetary contribution is used to invest in projects that reduce carbon emissions, such as reforestation projects and investments in renewable energy. This is one way that individuals can do their part to help to combat global warming. Moreover, individuals may also do their part by examining “the man in the mirror” – if people really want to make the world a better place, is starts with each individual. Each individual can do their part by investing in hybrid cars, recycling their glasses and bottles, investing in efficient furnaces and appliances, etc. Each of these acts would help our global warming problem, and, if everybody did these acts, it would stand to reason that our problem would be reduced considerably. This is why awareness is so crucial. Governments may also do their part. Governments, such as the United States, may choose to invest their tax dollars on projects which are geared towards cleaner energy – wind and solar are two alternative energy sources which could use government dollars. These are industries, which are fledgling industries; they really need governmental support to survive. Industries, such as oil and gas industries, are the areas that do not need our tax dollars. These industries have thrived for many years, therefore the subsidies that sustain these are areas of industry should be taken away and given to industries that support green technology. Our car manufacturers should be encouraged to increase fuel standards. Moreover, since the problem is a global one, there should be treaties put into place that would encourage countries around the world to invest in green technologies as well. This would especially include China, which is a major source of global pollution. That country is home to 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world, and a recent problem with smog sent residents to hospitals, caused flight delays, and also caused other problems (such as the fact that a factory was burning, but, because the smoke could not be distinguished from the heavy smog, this was unknown) (Pierson, 2013). The problem is that the country has grown rapidly, growing 30x since 1989,which means that the country has become the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide (Pierson, 2013). With that much pollution, China will contribute greatly to global warming. Therefore, there should be treaties that require that country to get its pollution problem under control, and there should also be an influx of foreign direct investment in that countries that will help it wean itself off of the dirty coal that is fueling its plants. Conclusion It is only when countries become serious about combating the problem of global warming, in other words, when they invest in green technology, when they give incentives to industry to use green technology, when they regulate automobiles to raise their fuel efficiency standards, when they regulate industry emissions in general – only then will our global warming issues become lessened. We also need to invest in projects like reforestation. Other countries also must be on board with this, and the use of treaties, incentives and foreign direct investment are ways of ensuring that the global community does their part to lessen global warming. Moreover, every individual needs to do their part – recycle, use energy efficient products, and buy energy efficient cars. With the efforts of the individuals, the government and the global community, we might be able to get the issue under control. References Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [Film]. Los Angeles: Paramount Studios. DVD. Pierson, D. (2013) China’s smog taints economy, health. Latimes.com. The Los Angeles Times. Crowley, T. (2000) Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289: 270-277. Evans, D. (2012) “Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism.” Global Research.ca. Oreskes, N. (2004) “The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” Science, 306: 1686-1711. Read More