It is incredible how quickly human beings have altered the environment. The Earth has been around so much longer than us, and is so much larger than an individual, that it feels beyond mankind to have a substantial effect on our home. However, the first image of the Earth viewed from the moon, in 1969, adds perspective to our actions. The Earth is finite and fragile and we are already changing it drastically. Both the pragmatic repercussions of our actions and any underlying morality call for a shift in human behavior. This is not fear mongering either, as the numbers of tons emitted, trees uprooted, and animals slaughtered are a factual wake up call.
I have held a very anthropocentric view, assigning instrumental value to all things aside from mankind. This is not because I believe humans have a special right to the universe or that God favors us. It is because I believe any species subscribes to this practice, although they may not be conscious of it. Animals take care of their survival and well being first and foremost, not even considering the concept of environmental responsibility or morality. Human beings are different because we have the unique ability to debate the morality of what we do. However, we are still animals and still have our needs and even wants at the forefront of our functioning. Because of this, my view has been shallow ecology. So long as our damage to the environment is not irreparable and does not harm mankind, I have been fine with it.
One example of this is the cyclical parable of the bat and the mosquito we mentioned in class. When I was young I was once told that bats were important because they kept mosquitos at bay. In class we said that mosquitos were important as a food source for bats. Of course I do not know about the exact repercussions of eliminating both bats and mosquitos but the metaphor stands. There are some parts of the environment that, if eliminated, would have minimal significance in an instrumental sense.
Despite this, mankind has shown an inability to protect the environment in even an anthropocentric capacity. The staggering rate of overfishing and deforestation are great testaments to that. I was particularly shocked to learn that only 10% of the fish that were originally on the Earth remain. Nutrient runoff fuels dead zones, killing off marine life and making entire areas unlivable. We create dead zones while making food but dead zones kill our food supply. This wastefulness is too prevalent. Cattle ranching is another good example, as we tear through forests, making them unlivable for animals, just to make areas for cattle to graze in. This wastefulness means that even beyond anthropocentrism, humans as a whole are not even working just to preserve their species, but really just themselves as individuals and perhaps their family and just a few generations ahead.
Perhaps ironically, this has pushed me to consider deep ecology as a tool for shallow ecology. This means that as of now my view is still very utilitarian. However, because of the failure of capitalism to quantify environmental costs and the unwillingness of individuals to think in the long run, a major shift in attitude is necessary. It is unsustainable to consume at the rate we do and fear for the future of our species is far off and almost as alien to us as the desires of a beetle or tree. If humans begin to think of themselves as a part of nature’s web, respect all life and assign it intrinsic value, they will be much more fit to survive as a species.
Of course there is always the school of thought that technology will evolve at a rate that races pollution and other environmental problems. Efficient means of harvesting solar energy, purifying water, farming food, and filtering emissions are on the horizon of research. In this case, why not consume at whatever rate makes us happy and wait for science to fix our problems? I am not necessarily advocating this plan of action, it is risky and arrogant, but some may think this way.
