After you have studied all four viewpoints, attempt to identify which of these views is closest to your own beliefs. Or, explain why these views are not close to any of your beliefs. This can often be hard to do, and while we may think that our ethics regarding the environment rest in one place, they can often be very different when we truly analyze our behavior.
I think for me the view that fits my belief system the most is the Gaia theory./hypothesis. I do think of the world as a whole that is self-regulating and self-sustaining. However, the theory does not describe how we then should treat the world. I think that all ethics are basically anthropocentric since it is the humans who give value to things, but that does not mean the world does not have value, or that i consider myself above non-human nature. I believe we have the duty to take care of the world, since that would mean that we as a species can survive. To survive as humans, we need a functioning earth. To value worms above a brother or a sister does not feel right to me. Therefore I have an antrpocentric Gaia ethic, (I think).
Reading this, I agree in full. Mine from more of a Christian point of view of anthropocentrism. Having said that, as a Christian, we are to take care of and not destroy nor use senselessly the environment for our own needs. And it is true about the Gaia effect, the Earth will take care of itself, like Dr. Lovelock stated, however, at what price? We don’t have the room nor capacity to move 7 billion people just to survive, so there will be casualties if we do not do something now.
Well there hasn’t been a reply in a long time but this is still part of unit 2.1 so I welcome input.
Obviously the Anthropocentric perspective cannot be sustained. I lean towards the arguments proposed by Gaia Theory in that the world is a system over populated with humans that will need to re-balance itself, but the perspective that science is somehow, in some way wrong, will not be taken lightly by the whole of humanity – let alone the radical view that the planet is alive (albeit makes sense and with more proof could have a good case for itself). If there was even a branch of science that focused on working together with other branches of science as Lovelock criticizes our current scientific system with having no capacity for, then we would be much closer as a society to creating coherent interdisciplinary solutions throughout that could identify problems, get funding much more easily, and begin to solve them with globalistic force. Added bonus is we might be able to keep Gaia from killing most of us.
The past two weeks for us here in Denver, Colorado have been in the mid 60’s and have even reached into the upper 70’s – breaking records as well as setting them for the middle of February. It makes me cringe thinking of the summer in a couple of years, not to mention what’s going to be happening in the rest of the world. There are already food shortages in Venezuela and rivers drying up in plenty of other places too.
As a side note, Hydroponic Farming – specifically in shipping containers like what is being done by Square Roots created by Kimbal Musk – is a cool solution to there being less water, less land available for agriculture, and more mouths to feed.
It’s obvious something’s got to change and more weight ought to be put into the huge ideas that have the capacity to solve our problems. What about farming mass quantities of algae in open areas of the warming oceans where they’ll grow particularly well, produce plenty of food/fuel, foster miniature ecosystems, and even new areas to fish? Or as Lovelock suggests, start efforts to introduce charcoal into farming which purportedly has the ability to far exceed our demand for reversing the effects of global warming than are needed to mitigate them annually. We need these and other creative solutions to, as he puts it, “Ask Gaia for help.”
Obviously anything proposed will be a hard sell because we’re human and that leads to blatant Anthropocentricism – rightly so. But I agree with Nynke24 that all ethics here are basically Anthropocentric in the respect that we’re the one’s who came up with them and they’re supposed to be what’s best for humanity. Any argument that’s not is ludicrous and is forgotten the moment it’s uttered. So even in the bleakest of these arguments there’s hope.
If an opinion is to make any impact at all, it has to A) not interfere heavily (at first) with the anthropocentric standard, unless some catastrophe directly linked to global warming occurs allowing it to do so and B) is applicable in many degrees comparable to the multitude of ways humans are able to adapt their lifestyle to accommodate the global effort to stop global warming. As was stated earlier in the course by Aldo Leopold, “An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence.” and I agree fully with that. Huge economic and political incentives are what’s needed to motivate governments and so that’s where our solutions must be aimed. What if, instead of net zero communities there were net positive ones? What if human waste actually produced energy in the typical restroom? We’d all be contributing to the cause whether we care for it or not, making up for a little more of what we exhale every day.
I’m sorry for rambling on, but that preface was important because my ethics begin with action – ethics have no relevance without it. In pure theory, however, it is my belief that we need the perspective of Gaia Theory to motivate our action, and our action should be that which perpetuates the integrity, sustainability, and beauty of the action in a system as a whole (Land Theory). I hesitate away from calling my belief deep ecology, though, because where deep ecology calls for spiritualism, I believe there is no room for it in practicality based on logical grounding. I felt the hedonism in the readings based on the part about clouds over the Atlantic Ocean, so don’t get me wrong I think it’s an eye opening perspective. But in the face of global diversity it is too much to think we will replace Christianity at the epicenter of ecological belief, and it is too much to ask the everyday Joe to understand these things the way we do. If they just act in accordance to Land Theory as a part of an overall system, in the 21st century that will be enough.
Although the rest of the world sees it as overly idealistic to hope for Land Theory to spread, I believe there is room for at least a version of it in 21st century education. I am an education entrepreneur on a mission to affect educational change in America and I’m confident we can fit integrity, beauty, and sustainability into a new system America uses. The old one is stuck back in the industrial revolution anyways. It’s thoroughly efficient at killing creativity and making my friends depressed, but in that fact we have been given a gift in the form of vast opportunity for change. The country is screaming for what we don’t have. If ideas are the currency of our generation, imagine what could be done for the environment when the ecology of Land Theory is applied to it.
Yes ! Man will exploit the environment in every which way to meet his wants and needs. These impulses arise out of his desires… greed and the thirst for power. This Anthropocentric style of life at a fever pitch will hurl us to catastrophic destruction.
I have been smitten by the arguments of Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis. This scientist makes such a lucid case for the need for change that ought to jar those who live blindly within the supremacy of man’s selfish needs without consideration of the lethal consequences of such lifestyle for human existence.
Yes, I support the protection of all life that nature spawned. I realize that I must respect all forms of life from insects to elephants, Biocentricism promotes a very valid perspective for human behavior. I understand and accept that in the human drama in case of vermin such as rats and a scenario of marauding bears we need to act to protect ourselves in a variety of ways before we use violence.
The arguments of ecocentricism with its emphasis of “land ethic.” provides weighty argument to bless the land and nature. Never have I accepted the dangers of overpopulation and dangers of food shortages until now.
Naess justifiably argues we must exercise deep questioning of environmental issues that arise and identify problems that could impact our world.
Lovelock’s explanation of the Gaia Hypothesis is the first discourse I have seen that scientifically makes such a rational case for a new world view that puts man at the centre of the need for sacredness as he or she contemplates the life dynamics of sun, atmosphere, water and earth that impacts us even now and could doom life as we know it.
To think that the rise of water levels never before seen as a constant phenonomon
is one sign of the destructive nature of global warming is scary. As 40 percent of the northern ice pack shows, man must consider the seriousness of global warming. It is not fear mongering. " A Gaian approach opens new doors of perception and opens our vision of the interdependance of all things within the natural world."
Not only the laity must live according to the tenets of ecology’s requirements of a sincere
adaption of principled living but the scientific community must use an approach to scientific research which reflects deep personal commitment to the sacredness of the world’s ecology.
The theory I most identify with is the Deep Ecology theory. I think I identify with it the most because of how much it emphasizes that while humans are the most advance that means it is our job to protect the other life on Earth and not taking advantage of it. It states that nonhuman entities have value that is measured by far more than just what they are worth to humans.
Within the ideologies of Ness,Stephen Harding, Turlington and Barnhill i only assumed that i knew some, not a lot, but had an understanding of ecology and world view matters pertaining to the planets future. After reading the material thus far i presume myself ignorant to the depth of the problems we face as a race in the protection and preservation of the planet, and how that is being thwarted to the advancement stages of “no going back”, and what is now ‘damage limitation’.Deep Ecology appeals more to me in that it recognizes our plight as a race within the paying forward of awareness in education and the concrete evidence it has developed, and yet ignored by some many, and in so many offices of state.
I think that the Gaia hypothesis holds the closest believe to what I have, as everything is interconnected to support each other in life as a whole. There are many examples which proves this hypothesis as supportable, the most obvious one is looking at the food chain of most live beings. How the bees help spread the pollen to flowers and the flowers then produces honey for the bees to harvest. and how mice gets eaten by the snakes and the eagles ends up eating the snakes. I wouldn’t be able to imagine how hard it is for the life of the beings on the third chain factor if the second chain factor goes extinct.
Overall, my view falls closest to that of Anthropocentrism. I am a Christian and I strongly believe that mankind was given dominion over the Earth by God. However, in the short explanations we watched and read on Anthropocentrism, I can’t help but feel that the commentators do not give it a chance. Anthropocentrism is not inherently bad as many of the authors we read imply. It, like all the other Ethical views, has it’s virtues. Human’s being at the top does not necessarily mean raping and pillaging the land at our pleasure. From a Christian perspective, it means valuing Human life first, and secondly being a good steward of the land.
In my opinion, the Gaia Hypothesis seems to feel like the “correct” view. I will admit, watching the creator of the idea argue his case made a big impact. The idea that all things, sentient or not, hold an important place in our interconnected world makes sense. I do believe that it will take a tremendous effort to change human’s anthropocentric tendencies but it’s hard to blame the human race for not realizing this prior to our more recent understanding of science and nature.
As a Christian, I feel that my beliefs most closely align with the Land Ethic. All of nature has value because it was all created by God. Humans are called to protect and steward the earth, not use it in any way we see fit. Under the Land Ethic, humans have a right to use the earth’s natural resource to survive, but not without regard for nature. Rather, humans are to live in harmony with nature.
Natural morals has become an interesting issue of the cutting edge period. Gone are the times of our normal surroundings being an idea in retrospect. We, as a general public, are currently completely mindful of the characteristic territory in which we are a piece of, what it accomplishes for us, and what we do and can accomplish for it. This is critical as this acknowledgment might have been, generally, missing until only a couple of decades prior. The accompanying paper will show how in spite of the fact that we have made some amazing progress in understanding nature’s actual quintessence and our carelessness of this regard, despite everything we have a great deal of work to do in sharpening these moralistic perspectives, in light of the fact that the Earth isn’t only for individuals and on the off chance that we don’t keep on recognizing this, it might simply retaliate.
In hundreds of years past, society gave little consideration to nature and its non-human occupants other than how it can profit humankind. Regardless of whether it was for nourishment, work, or delight, nature just was perceived for human addition. We were particularly a human-centric progress, which means, we just doled out natural incentive to individuals just or there was a more prominent inborn worth put on people most importantly non-human living things (Brennan and Lo, 2008). It was even a solid strict conviction that everything on Earth was put here by God for human utilization. Everything was thought to be available to us. From trees to creatures, in the event that we had a requirement for it, it was utilized. Add to this that our populace from the beginning of time has developed exponentially and this implies much more individuals adding to this lack of regard. After some time, people were by all account not the only ones ignoring nature, elements, for example, organizations were as well. As ventures were found and developed they utilized our common assets as well as debased them too through contamination and waste. In spite of the fact that prominent recorded figures, for example, naturalist Aldo Leopold (1949), scholar Rachel Carson (1963) and student of history Lynn White Jr. (1967) spearheaded natural mindfulness, it wasn’t until April 22, 1970 that change truly started to happen. That specific day was marked Earth Day in the United States and it was a day used to carry cognizance to the peril and estimation of our condition (Earth Day still is perceived yearly every April right up 'til today). Notwithstanding this occasion, NASA created a stunning and edifying picture of the Earth taken from space at Christmas 1968 and included in the Scientific American in September 1970 that truly pushed open intrigue. Here, plain to see, was a living, sparkling planet traveling through space and shared by all mankind, a valuable vessel helpless against contamination and to the abuse of its restricted limits (Brennan and Lo, 2008), concern got obvious. The entirety of the utilization and ensuing maltreatment joined with a steady blasting populace created a requirement for a change, henceforth natural morals was conceived.
Ecological morals, characterized, is a part of theory that thinks about the ethical relations between individuals and their indigenous habitat; as a field of study, it expect that people have certain obligations to the regular world, and it tries to help individuals and their pioneers become mindful of them and to act capably when they do things that effect the normal world (ScienceClarified, 2010). Not exclusively do ecological morals feature the human abuse of the earth and the impacts of this abuse, however it stresses nature and every single living life form as having the same amount of right to live/exist on this Earth as people do. Two ways of thinking, however different structures exist, are reliable with ecological morals: profound biology and shallow nature. Profound biology is a philosophical conviction that all types of life-plant, creature, human-have a characteristic right to exist in the common habitat and that people have an immediate duty to keep up nature for all living things; though shallow environment holds that people have an obligation to ensure the earth so it can bolster human life both in the present and later on (ScienceClarified, 2010). While profound nature is all the more so a definitive objective, the two ways of thinking are a significant change in thought when contrasted with our human-centric past. Do different species have an inherent right to exist? Does the Earth exist only to assist humankind? Are people liable for being the watchmen over the Earth? Do trees have any legitimate rights? Is it accurate to say that we are committed to have worry for people in the future? Questions, for example, these, among numerous others, are what drive natural morals.
Your philosophical perspectives is seems like professional level
I find myself drawn to the viewpoint of biocentric egalitarianism. It seems clear to me that having the capacity for well being and having your own interest is a necessary and sufficient conditions to ground the moral worth of a being. In short, it it has preferences and knows when those preferences are violated and has a vested interest in it’s own well being, then it is worthy of moral consideration.
Humans are just one of the many thinking and feeling creatures on the planet and it’s not clear to me why we should hold our own experiences and interest as necessarily privileged. Obviously, humans have to impact the environment to survive, but the key is to find a way that maximized the well being of all sentient creatures.
I guess I will go with Anthropocentrism. I have always believed humans as the central and most important being in the universe. I do believe also in Biocentrism and that’s all life, not just human life should be protected. I don’t feel it’s okay to kill of a certain species, they have the right to live just like us human beings.
well, you know if other organism were able to express themselves through language than everything would be much different.
In my opinion, I think anthropocentrism fits my beliefs the most as I am a Christian. However, I also believe in the fact that we shouldn’t take nature for granted. I believe we should protect nature and keep everything in order instead of doing whatever we want. Nature helps us survive so we should do what we can to sustain nature.
I go to office now
I am a 49 years old
He is good to learn
We are students here
he have a beautiful cat
I am really glad that I am taking this course. It comes at a good time because I have been thinking of starting a political party called "Stop Killing (and Maiming) Folks. I wanted to have a more inclusive view that would be reflected in how we treat the land and animal life. This course has given me a lot of ideas. So I believe that I’m anthropo-biocentric seeing the Earth being shaped by the hands of the Godhead to reflect the Holy Spirit, who is Female. Thus Gaia for me is the shell of the Spirit: 29When You hide Your face, they are terrified; when You take away their breath, they die and return to dust.