Anthropocentrism seems to be the position, I think, that is closest to correct; my position is Ecocentrism. Anthropocentrism doesnt settle well with me because I have known an idea to never trust the man who builds monuments to himself. I also think that this idea prevents the people of our planet from forming logical and constructive ideas about the environment. The humans of the world are comprised of the same material that constructs the chair you are sitting in, the rocks on the ground outside, and the air you are breathing right now. You may be recycling oxygen in your lungs right now that Caesar once breathed. The molecules that make up your body may be the say molecules that once churned inside the mantle of the earth, some 30 miles below the surface. Anthropocentrism to me looks to answer and satisfy the human economic, spiritual and psychological good as it has so many times been described, but what is Anthropocentrism without an ecosystem to live in. Anthropocentrism wants to not consider nature as a part of the do unto others category or even be involved in karma. In this regard, the position sets itself for issues surrounding the idea and also presents an area of rationality to select as a norm. The belief is that humans are the center of the universe, but with that we still cannot just destroy and use up everything, more of what we should use is according to our health and what we need to stay healthy. Right away humans shouldnt cut down entire rainforests just to have enough wood to have fresh paper and wonderful houses, but rather save the rainforest for as long as possible and only do what you must with the things that dont matter to us, resources of nature. Anthropocentrism wants to go all the way with centering of the human race and its only good towards itself, it seems to be selfish.
The position of Anthropocentrism works for me in a lot of ways, but Ecocentrism fulfills all my concerns for the planet, people and environment. My beliefs grow from the Bible, because that is from which I grow myself. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered." Gen 2.6 This verse from the bible says to me that everything on the face of the earth is for our primary use. The resources in the earth such as oil and coal, the animals on the planet and the water and air that fills the atmosphere are all for the use of humans. I think that if humans dont feel like using these resources towards their better good, no harm is done; it is when humans use the resources in an out-of-control manner by improving their lives to a point where the resource is starting to become extinct or polluted. An example is in the time that America was being discovered. The Indians destroyed the land and the animals in their area, living as nomads, moving with the climate and killing all that they needed to survive. The Indians of North America used every part of the Buffalo or the earths resources to build homes and weapons, even create food. When settlers moved through the area the buffalo were all around to be destroyed. The settlers used the buffalo for target practice, food, and simply just the art of killing. The settlers moved across the landscapes killing off the buffalo just for fun. The settlers had no idea the force they were creating, just killing and moving and leaving thousands dead. To me, this was a form of Anthropocentrism in those times. In 1492 there were 600,000,000 buffalo, by 1842 there were 491 (Poster on Indian Reservation in Oklahoma). The settlers were just thinking of themselves, having a good time, eating the meatsometimes, and killing these animals off just for the sake of fun. Now, the United States must preserve these animals to save what was once a thriving time for the buffalo.
Whenever I think about Ecocentrism I think that this idea prevents the world from destroying itself, and ill tell u why: it prevents the people in the world from running amok on one another(war, pollution, total disregard) and prevents anti-anthropocentrism; I think Ecocentrism actually helps promote human excellence and morally considerable ideas. The running amok I refer to is the idea that the world will be okay whenever humans are done with it. If everyone on the planets lacked regard for the well-being of the planet then this earth would be a mess. The air and water pollution would be out of control, cities and towns would be total disasters because people would just move on to the next town to conquer, destroy and not worry about the mess. As for war, the Ecocentrism tells us that if we start bombing one-another with these nuclear bombs, eventually there will be no where to go without radioactive poisoning or just toxic waste. These few problems are scratching the surface on what happens when Ecocentrism isnt considered and slightly observed. Albert Einstein..A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Ecosystem definition: all the minerals, energy flows between systems, animals, atmospheres and lithospheres of the planet, the ecosystems retain its own energy and the energies are not exchanged but shared, as the system is, a planet wide sharing of resources. When one part of the system is interrupted, the other parts are affected.
The expansion, the outer and encompassing circle of the David Hendersons position diagram.
Ecocentrism
Biocentrism
H Utilitarianism
Anthropocentrism
Egocentrism
As Leopold said in the book, as social ecology changes so our ethical criteria too changes, freedom of action, limitation put on us, basis of limitation of action. He goes on to say that we (humans) need modes of cooperation, as the same time evolving a mode of constraint as individuals; all ethics rest on a single premise The individual is a member in a distinct society, the ethics of the individual promotes cooperation. When cooperation to preserve the ecosystem and provided limitations on directions of actions in the ecosystem of the planet become a better awareness, I think the harmonies on the earth will begin to achieve something. What that is, I am not sure, but it could mean better resources for power, new forms of transportation or simply, a healthier way of life.
The next expansion from the inner circles of positions is the expansion of moral concern. Each time an expansion takes place, then sentimental expansion and moral expansion take place, I think.., and the Ecocentrism is not the most mature moral concern whereas we probably should have stopped at Anthropocentrism, but as regard for our friends and future family, we have reached such a level. Ecocentrism advertises Preservation. Even if the preservation is artificial, the balance is still encouraged and that makes us a part of the ecosystem. Understanding more about the ecosystem will help us preserve it.
There should be a more appeal to the considerability of the ecosystems. If everyone was to stop the regard, the ecosystems of our planet would suffer, maybe creating greater problems for the health or safety of the sentiment creatures, whoever you consider they are. The ecosystems provide the air we breathe, the water we drink to survive, and the nutrients we rely to grow our food.
Can the features of the ecosystem be no moral concern to the planet. I think the answer is Yes. With no concern for the planet the resources of the planet begin to wilt and fade. With low oil, horrible air, polluted water and soils, and unhealthy living conditions the quality on the planet and the humans and the animals will survive, but what will life be like? The lives under these conditions provide a tough life for everyone. Made it this far has you? Well, simply put, it the resources of the planet are destroyed and not preserved, and the continents are polluted, and the air quality destroyed, and the animals unhealthy, then so goes the green grass, the breathable air quality, the delicious drinking waters; the beauty of nature would be lost, and it isnt an over-night thing to restore such precious entities as fresh water or clean air. I am talking thousands to maybe millions of years to restore.
All of these points bring up many arguments about how the scientist can create artificial living habitats, cloned animals, and artificially created oxygen for trees and breathing; is this the life you want to create for yourself? But you can guess what, humans are not destroying this planet, they are destroying each other with the polluting and lack of regard for the environment. Yep, all humans are to the planet is a minor surface disturbance. The planet is going to snuff our species off the face of the earth soon anyway and make way for the next stupid species. The planet earth with all the plastics and landfills is not destroyed, the planet earth with degrading ozone is not a disaster, and the planet earth with bad water is not a crime. The planet is a self-rejuvenating system that will be an upgraded earth (earth+ plastic); the earth will eventually destroy all the landfills and pollution with extreme heat and pressure and create new fresh soils. The ozone will be very easily replenished by volcanoes and gas releases. The water will simply overtime be churned and recleaned, just as it has done for billions of years. I guess we can worry for the planet, because the planet takes care of us, we dont take care of the planet. The planet was designed to deal with microscopic occurrences like humans, it really just replenishes itself every 10 million 100 million years. The more we take care of the planet, the longer it will protect and take care of us.
Resources:
1. Lecture Notes
2. Foundations of Environmental Philosophy: A Text with Readings, Frederik Kaufman, McGraw Hill. 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment