The Role of Humans in Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

? The Role Humans in Environmental Ethics The Role of Ecology in Environmental Ethics Introduction Within the natural world, organisms relate directly with each other, as well as draw value fro the natural world around them, which is commonly referred as environment. The scientific study of these relationships is commonly known as ecology. Environmental ethics entails the study of the ethical relationships between human beings and their surroundings, particularly in the regard of the respect that should be offered to the natural world. In regards to this, ecology plays an important role in helping to understand the responsibility of human beings towards one another and the environment. In addition, it helps understand why these responsibilities are existent. There are a number of ecological disciplines that assist in achieving the goal of understanding the moral obligations of human beings. This paper will discuss the debate raised by Leopold’s suggestion: that the role and view of man should change from an anthropocentric one to – to one that allows hem to accord the natural world intrinsic ethical value. The paper will discuss the nature that man should play like a warden of the natural-world community, but not the conqueror, who can exploit the natural world for the selfish interests (Leopold, 1960, p. 220). Discussion Many scholars argue that human beings have a moral standing – which is superior to that of the natural world, including animals and the natural phenomena. However, the minimal extension of the moral nature of humans to cover the natural world causes real and difficult problems. These scholars, including Aldo Leopold hold that such an anthropocentric ethics base fails to go a long way, in offering the regard and the protection to be offered by the different natural community members. Therefore, they have offered and carried out studies, geared at the expansion of moral standing, to reach beyond the human community. Under this perspective, they claim that the selfish benefits of human beings can be addressed or eliminated through advocating, thus realization of better regard and treatment for the natural environment. In this regard, Radical ecology views moral standing as insufficient to resolve the environmental threats facing the natural balance to be attained. Radical ecologists argue that contrary to the shallow approach by moral standing, a wider philosophical perspective should be adapted, where human beings will shift their attitude towards the environment as well as their understanding of reality of the balance between the different community members. In a bid to achieve this, it is necessary that human beings re- examine their place, so as to be able to comprehend the place they take and how they identify with the rest of the natural world, which is often abused, through uncontrolled abuse of the natural world. The utilitarian tradition of environmental ethics, on the other hand, holds that the maximum good and for the greatest number should be the goal, in defining the value and the importance to be given to the parts of the natural environment. The model, particularly points out two types of good to be considered, including the good which is held to be good for its own sake and the good which is good, because; it promotes other areas of good. Towards attaining this, preferences under watch are compared, where the preferences of different people or groups are conflicting. One of the major strengths of this model is that it is embedded in ordinary ways of reasoning and thinking (Des Jardins, 2001, p. 30-32; Abbey, 2002). These views are relatively divergent to those of deep ecology, which works on the basis of the basic principle that the living environment as a whole has similar rights to live and flourish. The endowment of rights to live and flourish, according to the model, is grounded upon the reality of man’s relationship with the natural environment and that between these different parts of the natural system also (Des Jardins 2001, p. 205-212). According to radical ecologists, the extension of ethics is insufficient to achieve the overall goal. This is because; it does not diverge from human’s traditional ways of thinking, which is highly human-centered. Human beings in this case are models of entities with moral standing, thus, entities who should be offered their place to exist and thrive within the environment, which is supposed to include the other members of the natural-world community, if only the existent natural interrelation and balance is to be maintained. As a result, radical ecologists do not confine themselves to ethical arena, but a call for essential changes within the society and its respective institutions. Generally, they require that individuals and the entire society – change their way of living and the functional roles played, in order to stop environmental crisis. Callicott Baird, just like Aldo Leopold, holds that environmental ethics should streamline to look at the direct objects behind the wholes, which make up the basis of moral concern and further argues that there is an intrinsic value in all nature non-human entities, which need to be respected (Callicott, 1989). Deep ecologists’ checks – reject anthropocentrism calling for a “total field” perspective, where they do not aim at formulating moral principles to supplement the existing ethical framework in relation to the environment. Rather, they command new philosophical perception and global view. The ecologists behind these efforts advocate for the replacement of the destructive philosophy of the modern industrial society, towards the development of an eco-philosophy. They possess distinct philosophical and religious allegiances, rather than a unified perception, which is the case, because; supporters of deep ecology hold different worldviews, these including that, human beings are interconnected with nature. Therefore, their obligation is to identify themselves with other life forms on earth. Arne Ness and George sessions introduced a number of principles that are fundamental to deep ecology. According to them, the flourishing of human life and non- human life on the earth presents inherent values in itself, which is autonomous of the utility of the non-human nature, to meet the needs of humans. The diversity and affluence of life forms greatly contributes to the recognition of these values, therefore, human beings do not posses the authority to reduce this wealth and diversity. Towards the realization of a thriving non-human world requires the pressure of a smaller human population, as well as the pressure resulting from human life and cultures, which is compatible with a substantially small population. However, due to the constantly increased human population and activity, there is a rapid increase in interference on the balanced non-human world. Therefore, there is a necessity to form guiding principle, which shape economic, technological as well as ideological structures – where ideological change will involve appreciating the quality of life rather than focusing on the improvement of living standards. Therefore, the implementers of these principles are responsible for the employment of the changes, whether directly or indirectly. Deep ecology faces a number of criticisms: the critics argue that its perception is vague, thus cannot address actual environmental issues and not able to provide real guidance for action. This is because; on one hand, deep ecology offers principles to provide guidance, whereas on the other, it outlines that it is not principally related the portrayal of codes of conduct, but the adoption of an effective global attitude and model. In as much as we may fail to consider the principles outlined and rely on the state of consciousness, two problems remain unsolved. Firstly, the adoption of the state of mind consciousness approach does not guarantee that all conflicts of interest will be resolved. Secondly, the question of what is to be done to those who fail to adopt the appropriate state of consciousness remains a puzzle. Are there any chances of persuading such people about environmental crisis, if guiding principles or obligations are not available? In the end, deep ecologists stand firm in their opinion that an entire new worldview offers the best solution to environmental crisis. Social ecology is similar in view with deep ecology, in that, it claims that environmental crisis lies in the leading ideology of modern societies. In regards to this, social ecologists claim that – to successfully resolve a crisis, it is necessary that a radical renovation of the players involved gets done. However, the radical change proposed by social ecologists does not involve self- realization, but the absence of domination. According to Murray Bookchin, a prominent social ecologist, environmental problems are directly influenced by social problems, as hierarchical relationships have developed between humans and the natural world, which directly stem from the prevalent power hierarchies within the modern western society. These hierarchies have been enhanced by the ideology of a free market, resulting in the reduction of human beings and the natural world, to mere commodities source and the respective benefactor. In his argument, Bookchin argued that the liberation of humans and nature are dependent on one another. Other social ecologist like the Marxists differs with him, arguing that the freedom of human beings is dependent on a full domination of the natural world via technology. This argument is similar to the capitalist ideology. However, as per Bookchin’s argument, humans are a fraction of the natural world, and not discrete and independent of it. For instance, as Bookchin denotes, the species within the same ecosystem are of the same class, which is to mean that none is superior to the other – as their relationship is mutual and interrelated, which calls for radical transformation. In his view, successful transformation will occur within small communities based on sustainable agriculture, involvement via democracy and freedom without domination. As such, nature facilitates maintenance of a richer human community, where a stronger relationship is built between nature and the human community. According to Bookchin, humanity is not to be blamed for environmental crisis, but the relationships within the society (Schluter, 2006). Bookchin’s theory has been criticized for a number of reasons – the major one being the extrapolation of the natural world by the members of the human community. In his argument, Bookchin argues that non-hierarchical human societies are the products of interdependence and the lack of hierarchy within nature. Also, as Leopold notes, the way a society should be is distinct from how nature is presented in actual form, where other aspects of nature, apart from the hierarchy within it, would not favorably fit to exist within the human society. For instance, in an ecosystem, evolution eliminates the weak species and classes of individuals, leaving the strong ones to dominate the system, which may go through further change. Previously explained, is the survival for the fittest approach, which is entirely natural and fitting in nature’s characterization as interrelated. However, it is inappropriate to ground the balance of human beings on the grounds of survival for the most competent entities – is not practical, as this will lead to the elimination of the exhaustible natural world by humans, who are in a position to exhaust it – but the reverse not possible. Therefore, Bookchin’s theory and ideas of inferencing how a society ought to be in relation to how nature should be – is not effective upon these standards (Brewer, 2007). Further, many philosophers view Bookchin’s theory as anthropocentric, thus not able to grant the environment the consideration it deserves. Critics base their evidence regarding anthropocentrism on the manner, in which Bookchin accounts for the liberation of nature and human beings, as he argues that the liberation process must occur with the assistance of human beings and not on its own accord. Bookchin denies that nature is in existence; particularly human beings – that they are a community in nature. The philosophers are not comfortable with the consideration that human beings are accorded as per Bookchin’s theory, thus inappropriate in offering conviction that human beings are fully aware of the unfolding of nature, thus able push for its realization. Other forms of ecology that influence the interrelationship of organisms and nature include population ecology, community ecology and e-ecology, which distinctively affect the way organisms, interact with each other as well as with their surroundings. Population ecology refers to the field that explains life forms with regard to the magnitude and structure of their populations, and how these populations interact with the surroundings. Population sizes change over time and space; therefore various changes occur on the environment. For instance, an increase in population size may lead to the destruction of natural resources like forests, which are destroyed to create space, for accommodating the increasing organism populations (Miller, 2006). Community ecologists study the interactions of various interdependent species, which occupy the same geographical location and how these interactions affect the abundance and diversity of species within communities. The interactions of the different species pose a threat to the environment, as they compete for the limited resources, and in the process, cause harm to the environment. However, the condition is subdued with the fact that, there exists a mutual relationship, under which organisms mutually benefit from each other. In community ecology, philosophers have recently, deviated thought to the theoretical model of biogeography at islands and the debates affecting its significance with regard to the models of organic reserve networks. The base of the model is the species-area association: vast areas of the same type of habitat contain more species than smaller ones, therefore the existence of a monotonic relationship between species affluence and area. However, the form of this relationship and more importantly the mechanism responsible for it, are questionable. In spite of intermittent efforts throughout, close to a century, the following have stayed unanswered queries, where an effective response to the first query –despite being one that offers no insight on the functioning mechanism, is an authority regulation reflecting Arrhenius: S = cAz: here S stands for the numeral of species; A, area of coverage; while c and z are operational constants to the equation. This power law represents what is often called the “species-area curve.” On the other hand, traditionally, the question of mechanisms and the species-area correlation was accredited to ecological non-uniformity. Wider coverage areas were assumed to exhibit habitat uniqueness, therefore could amass a bigger number of genus, each having its unique needs. Recently, the interrelation is commonly accredited to the principle that vast coverage areas can host bigger populations of any genus. As a result, minority groups face the possibility of extinction, when covering a vast area, as compared to when inhabiting a smaller one, at any given time throughout existence. Therefore, on an average basis, more genuses are better-off inhabiting a larger area, as compared to smaller groups, despite the fact that they may have began with the similar genus concentration. Whether the species-area curve is empirically supported has remained to be an issue of debate. In the years between 1950 and 1960, Preston was seen as an ardent supporter of the “power law model,” a model he held as the product of a changing symmetry regarding the mutual exchange of genuses amongst remote habitat territories. The same explanation had been presented in more detail, much earlier, by Munroe – who did not catch any attention. MacArthur and Wilson’s theoretical model of island biogeography was mainly an extension of the work of Preston. As per the model, the variety of genuses at islands – characteristic with similar latitudes and habitat, was mainly reliant on the isolation and coverage of the island. Further, the equilibrium is dynamic, in the regard that, the number should not vary as time goes by, despite the genus turnover, which alters the ratios within the community. The symmetry should remain, due to the countering processes of extinction ad immigration and extinction, where the rate of immigration relates negatively, to the extent of isolation, and the rate of extinction increases with a reduction in the area of habitation. Therefore, this model integrates the species-area association aspect (Odum & Barret, 2005). Ecosystem ecology on the other hand, deals with the study of organisms, their structures and functions, in relation to how they interact with the environment. Ecosystems are basic units of nature. Organisms are known to exist in groups of species, which share common characteristics. In certain circumstances, the structures are built on materials drawn from the environment. As a result, the environment is destroyed and degraded. Shifts in the practice of ecology, resulted to the emergence of ecosystem ecology (Odum & Barret, 2005). Ecosystem activists observe a lengthy entire coverage custom in explaining the history of the natural world, which defies intricacy and the likelihood of discussing the entire coverage of the natural world in terms of the independent parts. In this regard, “Systems thinking” was designed to substitute decomposition and reductionism, where the whole can be analyzed in terms of its parts. Another conceptual reallocation is that, studies on the ecosystems cover models, on the basis of part roles of the non-biological variables. For example, the tracking of the natural balance may be done by assessing the matter or energy flow depicted through webs, instead of analyzing particular species or particular entities. This further led to the expansion of ecological studies to get to the level called “big biology” by historians in the 1960s, particularly at the United States. An example is “the massive Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study,” which advocated for study by different specialists like biologists, soil scientists and geochemists - to work together, towards offering an extensive understanding of other parameters, besides the organic ones, which could be tracked simultaneously. This study move, also, comprised efforts by the biologists in engaging in publicly designed and funded “Big Science,” which was commenced by scholars, during the Manhattan Project, which has received beneficial exploration by social science scholars since 1950s (Krebs, 2008). Ecology is important in providing knowledge about the general working of the world, in terms of its constituents. In addition, it gives proof of the interdependent relationship between the natural world and the human society. Finally, adequate understanding of ecological systems assists in making a prediction of the impact of man’s behavior and activities within his surroundings. Ecology provides a basis for the conservation of nature. In regards to this, ecological studies of the rapidly disappearing landscape and vegetation have been carried out, which has helped in understanding the impacts of traditional management methods, such as grazing and burning vegetation. Consequently, new management systems have been developed, with an aim to conserve the vegetation, which is an important habitat. In the process, other organisms that are characteristics of the vegetation, such as plants, insects, reptiles and mammals, have been conserved. Maintenance of mosaic habitats, guarantees the existence of a wider environment (Smith & Hickman, 2007). This is in line with Des Jardins discussion on Wilderness, Ecology, and Ethics, which push for the view that life, is what earns humans moral standing, but also, the different characteristics of the natural world, including living things. In basic terms, the area of focus is the same, as both offer attention to the moral standing of all nature, including non-human nature, which may not have life – as humans do, but which deserves to be protected (Des Jardin, 2001, p. 150-155). Ecological repercussions of climatic changes and environmental pollution have become widely known to all populations, where the highest level of contamination can be accredited to the combustion of fossil fuels like petroleum. Plants as well as animals are exposed to controlled atmosphere and distinct ecological conditions under large-scale experiments. The conditions include raised levels of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide among others. Discovery has been made by scientists, on the response of plant and insects, which feed on plants with reference to climatic change and pollution. Therefore, predictions about changes in the distribution of plants and animals can be easily made. Additionally, it is easy to determine how yields of different crops and forestry might be affected. Fishing may at times cause destruction of the riches of oceans. Krill is the dominant organism in the southern ocean food webs. Birds, seals and whales, eat Krills. In ensuring that fishing does not disrupt the food web and as a result affect the populations of seals and whales, marine ecosystems should be managed with an aim to conserve living resources. It is therefore necessary to understand the interactions of marine communities, to ensure that certain communities are not made extinct due to poor management, as these plays a critical role in maintaining the natural balance existing between the human and the non-human communities (Molles, 2004). Improved pest control management can, only, be achieved through a keen ecological study. Ladybirds in the larva and adult stages are widely known to be predators of aphids. A study of the impact of the pesticides used to kill aphids on ladybirds is essential, towards determining the impact of ladybirds as well as other control measures. More often than not, ladybirds encounter contaminated areas and sometimes consume aphids that are contaminated, thus are poisoned, which leads to their death. The study of such enemies, from the case of the ladybirds helps identify the most effective pest control technique. An ecological study has shown that natural controls can be adopted to reduce the impacts and the difficulties brought about by small species in homes and other locations. It is important to note that the inside of a house is an explicit example of an ecosystem, as the warm and moist atmosphere offers a favorable environment for the growth of populations. A number of species including mice and rats are favored by such conditions, thus make a home from the surroundings. This shows that a control of the counter effects of the usage of pest control can be an effective model towards maintaining the natural balance expected to exist between humans and the non-human players, who play vital roles towards maintaining the natural balance (Molles, 2004). Deforestation has been rampant in the recent past. Human beings are frequently converting forests into farms, mines or plantations for non-native trees. As a result, some forest bird species cannot live in the remnant forests that are too small to accommodate their population. Larger species of birds such as the hornbill, pigeon and goshawk, need more than 10 square kilometer region to occupy, whereas smaller species like the robin need approximately 10 hectares. Upon the harvest of trees, a weed commonly known as chromolaena odorata, which promotes the frequency and intensity of fires, invades the forest. Ecological studies have helped to analyze the impacts of land conversion on native birds and plant species. As a result, they can give reliable advice about the same. From the account, it is clear that, in order to maintain the natural balance – which is effective for the running of the environment in an effective manner, human acts like deforestation need to be stopped, as this will help avoid the pressure on the species affected by the ecological changes (Odum & Barret, 2005). Ecology poses a number of problems. Firstly, it causes the formalization indeterminacy problem, where informally clear hypothesis can be translated into radically discrete formal complements. In the case one of the formal models happens to be erroneous, there is the possibility of the rejection of the initial informal hypothesis, though; other forms of formalization may have saved the phenomena. Secondly, “the interpretation indeterminacy problem:” factors in highly defined models may be deduced in commonly restrictive modes. The third problem is the demarcation ambiguity problem: the classification of models present difficulties because of the unclear boundaries demarcating different ecological sub-disciplines. This problem is more of a concern of philosophers rather than of ecologists (Miller, 2006). The fourth problem is the structural uncertainty problem: enormous predictive differences are made in theoretical assumptions and techniques. The fifth is partial observability problem, where the most basic parameters are often difficult to estimate in an accurate manner, thus most ecological models are not testable at the field. The sixth problem is the complexity problem: ecological systems are not supposed to be complicated. Recently, the establishment of a compelling operational distinction has not been offered, at distinguishing complicatedness from complexity. Generally, complex systems are supposed to exhibit “emergent” properties, which resist reductionist explanation. More than what has been done; no standpoint is likely to be offered regarding the complicatedness versus complexity issue. Lastly, the uniqueness problem: ecological systems ought to be unique because they are contingent historical entities. Further, historical entities do not present any contentions in scientific inquiries: for instance, galaxies and planets are historical units, successfully explored by astronomers. Further, ecological models should show histories that offer highly contingent organizations, which make them unique. Conclusion General philosophical conclusions about ecology cannot be drawn, because of lack of scrutiny, due to the nature of the subject. Ecology has however, received little attention than it deserves – even within philosophy of biology. Many fundamental as well as conceptual issues within ecology require clarification through careful philosophical investigation. The diversity-stability setback is characteristic in this regard. Its relevance to human beings and biodiversity should be obvious. Ecology ought to reach beyond mere presentation of ideas and principles. Rather, it should be an overview of how the world perceives, assesses and understands how the diverse pieces fit together. Ecology seeks to understand how the different pieces relate and influence one another, and how they generally operate as a whole, in a manner not predictable. Ecologists should be able to make the affluent changes, necessary to cause relationships among organisms not to negatively affect the environment. The goal of ecologists is to ensure that human beings have a conceptual understanding of their surroundings, and the impacts that their activities impose on these environments (Ridley, 2009). References Abbey, E. (2002). Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. London: Prentice Hall. Brewer, R. (2007). The Science of Ecology. London: Brooks Cole. Callicott, J. (1989). In defense of the land ethic; Essays in Environmental philosophy: 201-206 Des Jardin, J. (2001). Environmental ethics: an introduction to environmental philosophy. Wadsworth Thomson Learning: 30-32, 150-155, 205-212. Krebs, C. (2008). Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. London: Benjamin- Cummings. Leopold, A. (1960). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, T. (2006). Essentials of Ecology. London: Brooks Cole. Molles, M. (2004). Ecology. London: McGraw-Hill. Odum, E., & Barret, G. (2005). Fundamentals of Ecology. London: Brooks Cole. Pianka, E. (2006). Evolutionary Ecology. London: Prentice Hall. Ridley, M. (2009). Evolution. London: John Wiley & Sons. Schluter, D. (2006). The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, R., & Hickman, S. (2007). Elements of Ecology. London: Benjamin- Cummings. Read More