Feeding People versus Saving Nature - Essay Example

Feeding People versus Saving Nature Holmes Rolston III argues: “that one ought never to feed people first, but rather one ought to sometimes save nature” (515). Rolston simply is trying to emphasize that the human moral system does not actually give too much heavy weight on feeding people first than saving nature. Feeding people here is a representation of everything regarding the needs of humanity which all of them are remarkably sourced from nature. The nature on the other hand does not only represent the environment where every living thing is confined, but the actual nature of humans.

For instance, Rolston is just being realistic about the situation by agreeing the fact that it is ideal to eliminate poverty, but humans prefer other values by addressing first their needs (Rolston 250). Rolston illustrates this point by analyzing the desires of every person which he believes to be self-centered. For instance, humans are always looking forward to comfort which is the case why many inventions were invented from the past and at present time. On the other hand, he may be trying to emphasize that nature should not be sacrificed for the sake of achieving substantial human development because when nature falls; it would be against all humans because it is their life support system (Rolston 249).

However, by simply understanding the statement of Rolston, it is clear that he admits there are times when human needs should be the first priority or sometimes the nature as top concern. After all, humans and nature coexist in which their ultimate goal is to move forward to the preservation of life. That is why Rolston acknowledges the importance of sustainable development and environmental protection (Rolston 249). Based on the point of view of Rolston, it is clear that humans are just integral components of nature.

The fact that we are sourcing all our needs from nature cannot deny the truth that we can do nothing apart from it. In other words, we rely on nature all our needs. Now, on the issue whether we should not feed people first but save the nature instead, the argument may be based on identifying commendable values in human life. Finding which is more valuable between nature and the human life is in fact a very interesting topic to discuss. However, in the end, everything should be weighted based on the substantial human values.

Nature cannot be more valuable than the human life and vice versa, but it is clear that human life is an integral component of nature because it sources its needs from it. Therefore, since human life is dependent on what the nature possesses, it makes sense that preserving nature in order to continuously provide for the people is the best thing to do for the preservation of life. Rolston’s argument is clear and should not be complicated. Saving nature is about taking the path of sustainable development and environmental protection.

However, due to person’s self-centered value in life as illustrated by Rolston, it has become a reality that everything that nature provides will be used up or even exploited leaving the very case of poverty at present time. At this point, it is evident that substantial damage has already been done to nature, and what humans can do is to sacrifice for its restoration for the continuation of preserving life. After all, saving nature is just an ultimate way to save life. Thus, agreeing with Rolston’s idea seems to be most appropriate at this point.

Reference Rolston, Homes III. Feeding People versus Saving Nature? 1996. Web. 12 June 2012.