Humanity And Environment - Essay Example

Humanity and environment Introduction It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that living in the society should be regarded as an irreplaceable prerequisite for the development of the inner potential of a human being. However, many tend to overlook at the society is situated in the environment; that is why the relationship between human civilization and nature should be carefully explored. In the majority of the cases, the position of people would fall into one of two categories: with the emphasis on human dominance over nature and with the emphasis on equality of the species. This paper will argue that individual persons are not responsible for the harm associated with climate change and similar problems and explore different ethical issues raised from various points of view. Humans versus nature To begin with, it may be particularly important to note that at the present moment the academic community has developed a peculiar term which is sometimes used to describe the current period of it. It is called anthropocene and is accepted by only a part of the scientific world. Thus, the concept of anthropocene argues that the humanity has entered a new era when its daily operations of different scale have a global impact on the world (Matthews, 2014). As a result, the influence that people have on nature is not a topic for a debate, but rather a fact of reality that should be acknowledged. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to refrain from taking the responsibility for actions that influence the planet. So, climate change should not be regarded as some kind of hypothetical problem, but a real challenge that should be faced by the global community. All this leads to the development of two distinct approaches: anthropocentric and biocentric ones (Steiner, 2005). It must be noted that both state that the humanity has to face responsibility for actions such as climate change. However, they surely differ in the manner in which this responsibility should be exercised. The former approach notes that the human interests should be taken into account first. For example, fighting global warming may be a positive initiative, but it would involve spending a tremendous sum of money which will fatally harm the global economy. Therefore, a reasonable solution should be developed since otherwise the entire development of the industry is at stake. On the other hand, the latter approach states that the environment should become the highest priority no matter what. This is the kind of thinking that environmentalists endorse. For example, if a dramatic change in the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted can only be achieved with the help of banning cars and using electricity powered vehicles instead, then this could happen. It is obvious that this is likely to ruin many industries, but the damage done to the economy is not comparable with the good that will be done to the nature, according to this approach. Finally, one should also keep in mind that there should be a differentiation made between individualism and holism when it comes to interaction with the nature. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible to state that some people are more responsible for the harm that is done to the environment than others. If one considers the example of global warming, one will be able to see that literally all the people in the world contribute to it in one way or another. Thus, many drive cars, use electricity and so on. Therefore, it is impossible to state that some are guiltier than others which leads to the understanding that the humanity interacts with the nature as a single group. While some might consider this to be a rather convenient way to escape responsibility, other groups would see this approach as an opportunity to engage many people in environmentalist practices. For example, it may be difficult for some to stop using cars often, but if everyone does it, then the burden will be equally shared among the people. Humans and nature There have been numerous attempts to situation the humans correctly within the environment. At one point, the scholars developed the so called biotic pyramid. This view is based on the balance between consumption and production of energy in different forms (Newton, 2006). Thus, at the bottom of the pyramid one might find soil and plats as their major role is to produce energy. The plants are consumed by insects that are food for more sophisticated animals. All this goes up to the very top – the human. In other words, humans, being located at the top of biotic pyramid, are able to have impact on all the levels of it. In spite of the fact that people cannot compete directly with the predators, the former have developed weapons and nowadays no animal can be truly called an enemy to the human. However, this is not the only way to present relationship of the human civilization with the nature. Some argue that humans should be placed outside the food chain or merely in the middle of it. For example, it is true that soil, plants or insects can cause almost no harm to the human population in general. However, there are carnivores, like bears, that should be placed at the top of the pyramid because they have virtually no enemies and enjoy everything what has been produced by the creatures that belong to lower levels. In other words, the desire to place people at the top is nothing by a reflection of the adamant treatment of the nature. What is more important is that reliance on weapons or technology does not grant people a unique place in the animal world. Another point that should be mentioned when it comes to the harm which is caused by people is that sometimes animals are more responsible for it. A good example is the notion of invasive species. Indeed, some argue that it is a part of the human nature to destroy the environment, but there are examples of how animals can cause a significant harm to the environment as well. Of course, there are instances when their negative influence is amplified by human activity, but it must be noted that humans are not the only creatures that might cause destruction of the environment. No matter how ironic it might seem, but the negative impact of the humans falls in line with natural behavior of other species. Ethical framework Now, it may be advantageous to pay attention to various ethical notions that are engaged in the discussion in question. First of all, it must be noted that some might argue that taking care of the environment should be seen as intrinsic values (Vilkka, 1997). In other words, there is literally nothing to discuss: the significance of this activity is obvious that should be performed because it is right. All this leads to the understanding that the humanity should acknowledge the role that it plays and make sure that the activities of it do not harm the nature. Nevertheless, the latter bring up some incommensurable values. On the one hand, it is obvious that it is the responsibility of the mankind to minimize any harm that is done to the nature. On the other hand, many activities that are recognized as the main sources of harm are inseparably connected to the evolution of the mankind. One should also keep in mind that the first industrial processes that are responsible for the initial pollution are now replaced with better practices. In other words, it would not be logical to stop the research simply because at a certain stage it causes harm to the environment. That is why it may not be right to make the humanity make a choice between environmental conservation and development. What is more important is that one should also recall the idea of moral pluralism when it comes to harmonization of the two above mentioned notions. Indeed, it may be particularly useful to acknowledge that the different approaches that the humanity developed are equally correct and the preference may not be given to one of them. In other words, while some people may choose to carry on their daily practices that are known to have a negative impact on the environment, others will choose to refrain from them. Quite obviously, it will result in a conflict, but no side it more right than the other. Moreover, one should also note that equal consideration of interests may be needed and this would introduce some new parties that may have been overlooked before. For example, at the present moment the debate is between environmentalists who are willing to fight any manifestation of human activity which harms nature and those who think that the nature should serve people. In addition to that, the interests of the species should also be taken into account as they are directly affected by the human activities. The important point to state here is that their interests should have the same weight as interests of the people. However, this may be difficult to achieve from a practical point of view. Those who oppose environmentalists would present argument from ignorance. Thus, they would note that since people are not able to know the position of the animal world with regard to environmental changes, this position should be rejected. It is obvious that animals do not have their legal representatives, but it is perfectly possible to understand their position and include this point of view in the debate. Therefore, the issue of climate changes should be taken care of, engaging the positions of all the parties that are affected by it. As a result, this will avoid one way interaction with the environment. Ethical solutions There are many way in which the current state of affairs can be helped. For example, it may be particularly important to promote respect for nature. In other words, the latter should not be seen as the collection of some objects that people have the authority over. Quite the opposite, nature should be presented as the counteragent of the humanity that is fully conscious, but operates on a different level. This will surely have pollution a bigger issue since people will see that they are actually hurting something that has feeling and not some abstract system of phenomena. Therefore, promotion of respect for nature should become the first step in dealing with the negative impact of the human activity. In addition to that, one might recall the concept of environmental justice as well. According to each, various benefits that are provided by the nature should be distributed equally. For example, those nations that are land locked should be granted with a fair transportation abilities that are provides by the sea. In addition to that, such precious resource as water should also be distributed equally. However, environmental justice also distributes burdens on the nations. This means that every country in the world should acknowledge the impact that it has on the global environment and act proportionally. Thus, China should be subject to stricter regulations than some African countries. Another point that should be mentioned with this regard is the difference between the so called shallow and deep ecology. Indeed, it may be beneficial to generate various environmental initiatives, but they should be designed properly. Thus, shallow ecology would argue that the responsibility of the people with regard to climate changes ends when this process is taken under control. In other words, it is a short term solution. On the other hand, deep ecology would argue that people should embrace different kinds of responsibilities and make sure that none of its activities is hurting nature. One would make no mistake that this would be rather difficult to implement. It must be noted that the history know many different situations when people tried to direct the attention of the public to the environmental problems that it did not necessarily end well. A good example is tragedy of the commons. This concept stands for the situation when people pursue quite logical self-interest and use something that belongs to all the people, but by doing so they cause irreversible damage to it. Originally, the problem was noticed when people used common lands. This shows that few people are willing to take into consideration the long term perspective, especially if they are able to gain some benefits in the short run. This must be avoided if the humanity wants to forget about environmental problems. There is another peculiar approach that should be mentioned. Thus, at a certain point in time the movement for civil rights and social justice was able to project its ideas onto environment, leading to the emergence of ecofeminism. This is a peculiar movement since it draws a connection between treatment of women and treatment of nature (Warren, 1997). Thus, it is argued that the characteristic feature of nature is fertility and that is exactly the same characteristic that is characteristic to women. In addition to that the oppression of women in the patriarchal society is thought to be similar to the exploitation of nature by the capitalistic world. Finally, one should also keep in mind that there is an economic dimension of the problem. For example, one should consider different kinds of pollution to be external costs that emerge in the course of transactions. Since the economy of the world is thriving, there is no wonder that these external costs will appear more often. However, one of the peculiarities of this concept lies in the fact that no one is held responsible for this kind of damage. Moreover, the majority of people would agree that it would not be beneficial for the world to change the existing patterns of economy since that would result in uncontrolled changes. In other words, the people accept these externalities. In response to that, free market environmentalism was developed. This peculiar platform argues that environmental problems can be taken care of without rejecting the principles of free market (Hansen, 2004). In other words, the influence of the governments is thought to be limited even further and the companies who are responsible for generation of a significant amount of external costs should be held accountable. In other words, free market environmentalism argues that business is able to take care of the environmental issues in case it is given enough freedom to do so. That is why there is no need to limit anything, but the influence of the government. Conclusion Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above it becomes obvious that individual persons should not be held accountable for various environmental issues, such as climate change. First of all, it must be noted that the impact of the human civilization on the nature has already been acknowledge and the scientific community is likely to accept that the world is living in anthropocene. In addition to that, there is a number of various ethical notions that should be taken into consideration while analyzing the relationship between humans and nature. Finally, one should also take into account various solutions to this problem that have already been developed. References Hansen, K. (2004). The greening of Pentagon brownfields: Using environmental discourse to redevelop former military bases. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Matthews, J. (2014). Encyclopedia of Environmental Change: Three Volume Set. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Newton, J. (2006). Aldo Leopolds Odyssey Rediscovering the Author of A Sand County Almanac Washington, DC: Island Press. Steiner, G. (2005). Anthropocentrism and its discontents: Animals and their moral status in the history of Western philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Vilkka, L. (1997). The intrinsic value of nature. New York, NY: Rodopi. Warren, K. (1997). Ecofeminism women, culture, nature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Read More