Prompt Number Fourteen

27 Jan

The two group projects I choose to write about are the Climate Change group, and the Wilderness Preservation group (my group). My ecological ethicist position made me conclude that the climate change theme of greed from economic systems is an issue that stems from our anthropocentric views, and that our duty should be to the biotic community’s protection and not our own profit. We should all work together to combat climate change, and this starts with changing the way we all live in relation to the environment. The wilderness preservation issue followed my ethic perfectly, because the preservation of the environment will allow areas to recover from human interference. It also appreciates the idea of using resources in moderation, that if we can do so, we will be able to live more sustainably as part of the biotic community.

Two articles that exemplify this issue, are the papers written by Gardiner and Hardin. In Gardiner’s paper, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”, Gardiner discusses how a multi-disciplinary approach is necessary to understand the causes of climate change and to find ways to counteract this crisis. By only focusing on one discipline, you blind yourself from the whole picture—that climate change is really a product of so many different aspects of our lives and of the biotic community as a whole (economics playing a crucial role in increasing its destructive rate). I agree with this holistic approach because no one subject has all the answers to climate change. In order to follow our moral obligations to the biotic community, humanity needs to work together with the rest of the community (and with each other) to come up with solutions that tackle the damage our biosphere has endured.
The other article, “Lifeboat Ethics” written by Hardin, discusses how overpopulation relate to climate change. His analogy of “lifeboats” is, a metaphor that places rich countries in lifeboats that have adequate resources, while the poor countries are left to swim in the water with none. Hardin’s argument is that more affluent countries should not offer aid and support to less affluent countries, because it creates a delusion that these countries are able to continue to function on their own without changing. If this were an environmentally holistic view, it would stress the importance of all countries working together to benefit the biotic community rather than fight over remaining resources. By taking care of each other, humanity will be better able to reach a more environmentally friendly society, and then humanity can respect the environment once more. What we should do is change the policies and systems of more well off countries to more environmentally aware ones, and help the poorer countries reach better environmental standards as well.

In the Wilderness Preservation presentation, the common theme between the different papers was that we need to increase the preservation of wilderness for their many different services they provide for us and the biotic community as a whole. Each paper discussed different methods to achieve preservation, and gave different reasons for doing so. However, they all boiled down to a holistic viewpoint, that stated that we are a part of the environment, and that we should set aside land that as minimal human interference in order for the environment and other species to thrive. By creating these preservations, humanity would be appealing to the inherent value of non-human entities, and through their protection fulfill their obligations to respect the biotic community and know their place as just a part of the greater whole that is the planet.

In her paper, “Letting the World Grow Old: An Ethos of Countermodernity”, Mathews discusses a way to protect the environment, by “returning to nature” through a process of “letting things be”. This means no human intervention, or development that follow abstract man-made ideals, and just letting nature and the land grow old, and follow it’s natural processes. This is a very holistic approach to wilderness preservation because it advocates for the stopping of further development, and for humanity to use what they already have rather than strive for more. Since we are just one part of the planet, I believe Mathews believes that we must allow the rest of the community the ability to fulfill their lives without our intrusion. Another paper written by Callicott, “A Critique of and an Alternative to the Wilderness Idea”, discusses the misconception that wilderness should be areas untouched by man-kind. Callicott refutes this idea that, “…[wilderness is] an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain” by saying that we are a part of the biotic community. As such, humanity has the right to interact with the environment. The issue is that we need to do so in a way that doesn’t exploit the environment, or simply that we need to set aside land that we can utilize its resources respectively, understanding that they aren’t solely for our use. This is another great example of a holistic view, because it makes the argument that the earth’s resources aren’t just meant for humans. By finding a balance between using and preserving resources, Callicott believes that humanity can return to a respectful  relationship with the land, and that wilderness preservations are the best way to transition to such a  way of life.

In conclusion, I feel that humanity needs to realize our influence on the environment, and how we need to respect nature and realize our role as just a part of it—not its superior—following an ecological ethic. By changing the way we live, we can help fight climate change by living more environmentally friendly, and by preserving the land we can show it and other species respect and fulfill our moral obligation to the biotic community we are just one part of.

 

Leave a comment