Growing up, it was common knowledge that the human population was, and still is, harming the environment. However, there is a key fact that many people overlook to this day. This fact is the scale to which we are harming Earth. A single person might overlook the pollution they are emitting, but when you factor in the World’s population, it becomes quite a significant amount of pollution. To be exact, in 2011, the global emission for carbon dioxide was 34 billion tons.
I thought this was the most devastating number that was presented to me, and I began to wonder how could we possibly emit so much pollution that harms the planet we call home. We are emitting carbon dioxide quicker than photosynthetic organisms can convert it to oxygen, and meanwhile we are destroying the Amazon Forest adding insult to injury. To me, the Amazon Forest is a landmark that should be preserved. Although it may have the resources necessary for cattle ranching, the forest is an ecosystem for numerous populations of multiple species that should not be disturbed for our own interest.
Furthermore, not only do we harm the grasslands, but we harm aquatic environments as well. I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that only 10% of large fish remain today from what there once was in the world due to overfishing. If overfishing continues, I fear that many species that we take for granted may one day be extinct. Additionally, how can we allow massive nutrient runoff from farmlands to drain into the Louisiana and Texas coast, which in turn create dead zones? It is unbelievable that we are generating areas on the earth that become inhabitable, something that I view as horribly as the effects of a nuclear bomb. All of these statistics lead me to ask this question: How did we allow all of this to happen, and what is being done to lower the emission of these harmful pollutants?
Interestingly enough, there seems to be an answer for my first question: Anthropocentrism. When this term was first explained, I immediately thought of Darwin and his theory of the survival of the fittest. Only those most fit will survive to produce viable offspring, and it is every species goal to reproduce. In those terms, it makes sense that as humans, we will do whatever it takes to survive, even if it means harming the environment whether it is directly or indirectly. The real debate is whether or not this thinking is ethical.
To address this issue, a system was proposed in which the environment and all species were assigned an intrinsic value. This seems like a good idea, however to what end will this “intrinsic value” system work? Most humans make their decisions based on self-interest, and these intrinsic values hold no meaning to our interest. Instead, we rely on instrumental value, or what the value is of something to some end. When we see raw materials, we instantly think – what can we turn this into so that we can better ourselves? What is most shocking to me is that most people do not forecast what repercussions these choices have on the future generations. Yes, it may be ethical for us in the present, but will the future generations view our decisions as ethical, when they are the ones who have to deal with the 34 Billion Tons of carbon dioxide a year that we have emitted into the atmosphere? They will simply not. Clearly, some policies must be changed, new policies must be created, and the human population must be enlightened on the drastic influences their every day decisions have on the Earth as a holistic unit.
