I find myself wondering how the intelligence of humans, as a seemingly fortuitous and self-improving consequence of evolution, has caused the destruction of the environment and the forced extinction of countless species. I find myself pondering the sheer magnitude of the havoc that we cause and will continue to cause as the demands of society perpetually grow. And I find myself questioning humankind’s actions as an inevitable, but necessary outcome of the survival of the fittest. As compelling as the concept of biospheric egalitarianism seems to me (especially as someone who genuinely believes that humans are not as distinctly important in nature as we think we are), I can’t help but feel the undeniably apologetic undertone of subscribing humanity to the commandments of environmental ethics.

It would be unfair to assume the attitudes of specific individuals based on the overall attitude of a group, but it would be fair to say that humankind as a whole has been advancing the goal of serving its own needs and wants at the expense of the ecosystems around them. In a way, it reminds me just how similar we are to the very animals, plants, amoebas, and fungi that we seek to render inferior and separate ourselves from. The truth is that I don’t really believe that we inherently owe anything to other living things any more than they owe something to us. The true difficulty in judging humankind for damaging the environment rests on how we compare to other living things. It’s hard for me to come to terms with a squirrel truly believing that I, as a human, have any sort of intrinsic value that it must respect. That being said, however, the reality and repercussions of our own existence—as it stands—spells disaster for all living things in the near future, which is power that does not come easily to a single specie. Unlike other species that we share the same goals of survival and self-gratification with, humanity is in a position of both mental and geographic superiority that is unrivaled, and we make sure to use it to our advantage. We revel in our capability to create in excess, consume in excess, and (of course) expel matter in excess. And as the trend has been since the development of human civilization, the ecosystem as we affect it has been deteriorating ever more quickly because of our selfish actions.

Therefore, the crux of the argument for environmental ethics is in fact one for environmental morality. The objectivity in necessitating species to preserve the biosphere is impossible to see in a world where continued survival supersedes the maintenance of the environment and the existence of any other life. Thus, giving humanity the obligation in and of itself to care for the environment is unfair to the intrinsic value of all other life because, in fact, doing so would contradict the notion of biospheric egalitarianism. It aggrandizes our supposed purpose to something higher than what is expected of all other life.

Instead, I believe that caring for the environment is a dynamically assignable responsibility that humans must take up for the very reason that we have geographic and intellectual superiority. It is certainly one thing to feel a duty to preserve nature because of an innermost love for it, but humans are in that position of heightened power when they are absolutely obligated to do so. Thus, while the codes of deep ecology have a sort of objective truth, it would be unfair to assume that they exist for all species; they should exist for humans purely because our past, current, and potential actions had, have and will have enormous repercussions on the near future of our planet. It is simply the environmentally moral thing to do.

However, I hope that humankind is a just a phase in the timeline of the planet that it could get over if and when we are gone. Completely reversing our negative impact on the environment (in our current situation) is as monumental and difficult as it sounds, and in truth, it seems inevitable that the ill-fated offspring of the next generations are going to become more environmentally moral than any of our previous generations could ever have been. However, whether it will be because of a true belief in deep ecology or because we merely need to survive will be a whole other question.

I have to admit that sadly I am one of those people who is conscious of the damage being done to our environment and largely lives life ignoring that fact. I make some small concessions in every day life: I bring a reusable water bottle to school so I want have to waste plastic, I recycle and generally I try not to waste energy, but on a more macroscopic scale I do very little. The environmental crisis and the sustainability movement has always been an initiative I supported but from perhaps too far a distance, and I believe this course me making me re-examine my level of involvement. To hear that humans have released 34 billion tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere or killed off 80% of the world’s coral reefs makes it harder to sit back and simply watch the world burn. To realize that the environment is struggling to support us in nearly every way is both terrifying and essential to understand, for it brings the plight of environmentalists into your own head rather than just seeing it in the heads of others from a distance.

I was slightly skeptical at the concept of a Macaulay seminar on the environment and sustainability, but the more I experience of it the more I find it essential. I think that having the issue brought more into my life would be a change only for the better and that goes for everyone. If humans are to truly combat the damage we have been doing to the Earth, it will need to be a true team effort, not one taken on by only a small faction and educating the masses is the essential first step. I now really appreciate Macaulay giving us this seminar because over the arts or a study of people, this is the most important to the continuation of the human race as we know it.

Going beyond informative side of the class, it is also proving to be very philosophical and intellectually enriching. The idea of environmental ethics, a concept with which I was not familiar with before this class, poses a great philosophical question in determining the value of the world around us. In a basic, survival of the fittest sense, anthropocentrism is perfectly logical: we are the top of the food chain so we can use and abuse everything below us as we like. This way of life has created the world around us and even created our brilliant species of Homo sapiens, the only creatures that can even delve into such pursuits as environmentalism; yet also the only species who can do the type of damage we have and can. After realizing the later part, the deep ecology movement begins to seem relevant: if we are the only species capable of doing something to change this dangerous course of events, perhaps it is our obligation as a type of overlord to this great planet to care for it and not allow our species to destroy the remaining life force it has left.

In this day and age from either viewpoint, something must be done to combat climate change. Whether for the sake of preserving the intrinsic value we see in all things or whether it simply in an act of self preservation, we are condemning ourselves by allowing the world’s population to continue on this destructive path. Will we really think that the shift in quality of life in eating less fish and meat was too high a cost when we have entirely killed off the species of fish today and destroyed all the worlds forests for grazing grounds? Will all the productivity of our industry be for nothing when entire portions of the world are dead zones because of our undisciplined disposal of chemicals? We as a species must take action and as I said earlier the most important first step is to educate those who can bring change. I look forward to being educated.

dp_week1

As someone who has long been interested in the environment in an abstract and only semi-involved way, the issues and statistics cited in the first lecture were not all that surprising.  They were however, very disturbing and quite sad. As a species, we have a destructive impact on so many different aspects of the environment.  Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the issue is so difficult to gain support for. There just seems to be too many things we have to change about our society and about our lives in order to make a difference in the health of our environment. The movement lacks a single issue or front to act as a clarion call because so many different people advocate for protecting different things. An especially salient or especially resounding topic might make it easier for the public to support a cleaner environment and all that entails.

Of course the individual issues that motivate activists to demonstrate and lobby despite all opposition are distinctly important. The resolution of any of those issues would doubtless contribute to the overall health of our ecosystem and surroundings but it is sometimes hard for the citizen without scientific training to follow the train of logic that binds the wellbeing of a distant bay with their own welfare and economic situation or to understand the gravity of the situation revealed by dry statistics and data. This is especially true in recent years with the propaganda campaigns by various special interest groups attempting to discredit climate change and even environmental science as a whole.

In effect, these people have succeeded in turning science into something intensely political whereas being fact based, it should naturally be in the realm of the apolitical. Rather than accept the facts as they are and simply argue for this or that policy in light of them, these groups have succeeded in twisting the very facts themselves. That citizens are willing to accept such corruption of the facts points to a fundamental deficiency in the attitude and norms of our society. Despite all the scientists and activists sounding the warning, the public concern has not yet reached the critical mass necessary for a cultural shift. For it is indeed a cultural shift that seems to be necessary for real environmentalism to take hold.

By this, I don’t mean that society should cease to strive for a high standard of living or give up many of the luxuries that we understand as being a part of modern life. However, the average citizen has at least to be aware of the impact that their actions have on the earth. Only when the conversation shifts away from a discussion of whether or not the environment is worth saving and toward a discussion about how to go about it will things begin to happen. At that point, I think government will be given the authority to step in with regulations and incentives to encourage research and development in green energy and related avenues. At the same time, people will start to make choices such as saving energy and buying more efficient electronics, changes that are small in and of themselves but will perhaps spur the industry toward further development in that direction.

Regarding the concept of deep ecology, I think Naess’ general idea sounds right. I don’t think he means that each organism and each species necessarily must be preserved only that a certain attitude should be taken toward nature. We should recognize that nature and natural creatures and landscapes in a sense, deserve to be preserved. Pragmatism in the judgment of what to do in each specific case still has a place but it is practicality tempered with the knowledge that every decision comes with a sacrifice.