The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
This article begins by describing some of the effects that humans have had on the environment. First is discussed how areas of England which was once grassland is now covered in brush because humans caused the death or rabbits who previously controlled grassland growth. Humans introduced a disease that killed the rabbits because they were eating their crops. The article also mentions that negative environmental impacts caused by humans are often unintentional.
Early in the 14th century humans were already extracting material from the environment to be used in cannons. Cannons required potash, sulphur, iron ore and charcoal which were found in forests and mountains and caused erosion and deforestation. Often measures used to protect ourselves often produce issues more serious than the ones we are trying to fix.
The article discusses science and technology to be Western. It discusses the use of water power to crush grain and wind power being harnessed and then the use of power machinery to decrease labour costs. The article says that we must consider the impact that new developments have on ecology.
Agriculture is discussed as it was previously the main occupation of advance societies. Ploughing began as a simple practice that merely scratched the soil surface but then was changed to a process that could alter the soil surface greatly. This allowed farmers to exploit the soil. A neat quote from the article is “Man and nature are two things, and man is master.” This implies that both things are important, but that man has the ability to exploit nature to the point that he can control it. Religion controls how much a person will respect nature. Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion in the world. This means that humans think of themselves as the most important thing. I feel that humans have a very anthropocentric belief and that humans feel the right to remove any resources from the land. Humans must learn to think long term about the actions we take that may cause terrible circumstances for future generations.
The Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin begins by pointing out that he feels that the ‘population problem’ is a ‘no technical solution problem’, meaning that the problem cannot be changed by a change in the techniques of the natural sciences. The ‘population problem’ is related to overpopulation and loss of current privileges.
Next the article describes what ‘tragedy of the common’ means. It uses an example of cattle farmers who share a public pasture. Long ago when there weren’t many cattle they could all share the pasture between all of their cattle without a problem. But as time went on and cattle numbers increased they each began to add more cattle to the pasture. Each farmer profited more from having increased cattle raised, but the pasture quality weakened as overgrazing occurred. The tragedy is that each farmer isn’t doing a lot of damage but together the combined damage is very detrimental. Another example used is public parks, which if many people continue to abuse will not be available for anyone in the future. How to determine who gets to use the park is the difficult task.
The article also discusses pollution as a form of tragedy of the commons as people all add their own wastes to the environment often thinking it’s their right, or that it will go unnoticed. But if 6.7 billion people do this it would cause unimaginable damage to the earth. The article also mentions population as an issue because people feel have the right to produce as many children as possible. Increased birth rates means there are more people to exploit the earth.
The article ends discussing that exploiting the commons would be justifiable if there was a low population. For example, when the cattle farmers had only few cows each the land could sustain the livestock with out really being exploited. The final point mentioned is that Hardin feels the most important thing to control is population, or breeding. He discusses overpopulation being the most pertinent issue today. He proposes that we control this issue by increasing education.
When having a similar discussion with my family about the world population I was on the same side as Hardin. I feel that people should be educated and that is shown to decrease birth rates, and I do feel that birth rates must be decreased quickly in a humane way. I think that if there was an easy way to control the world population that would be the best way to decrease environmental destruction, poverty, famine, and many other issues today. Unfortunately many places in the world have many children to increase the odds of having a child survive, and then having someone to care for them when their old. Also, in some areas people feel that children will work and bring home a profit for the family. But in developed countries generally people see children as more of an expense and must save money before having kids. I personally feel that it is socially irresponsible to have more children than you can reasonably afford to care for.
This article begins by describing some of the effects that humans have had on the environment. First is discussed how areas of England which was once grassland is now covered in brush because humans caused the death or rabbits who previously controlled grassland growth. Humans introduced a disease that killed the rabbits because they were eating their crops. The article also mentions that negative environmental impacts caused by humans are often unintentional.
Early in the 14th century humans were already extracting material from the environment to be used in cannons. Cannons required potash, sulphur, iron ore and charcoal which were found in forests and mountains and caused erosion and deforestation. Often measures used to protect ourselves often produce issues more serious than the ones we are trying to fix.
The article discusses science and technology to be Western. It discusses the use of water power to crush grain and wind power being harnessed and then the use of power machinery to decrease labour costs. The article says that we must consider the impact that new developments have on ecology.
Agriculture is discussed as it was previously the main occupation of advance societies. Ploughing began as a simple practice that merely scratched the soil surface but then was changed to a process that could alter the soil surface greatly. This allowed farmers to exploit the soil. A neat quote from the article is “Man and nature are two things, and man is master.” This implies that both things are important, but that man has the ability to exploit nature to the point that he can control it. Religion controls how much a person will respect nature. Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion in the world. This means that humans think of themselves as the most important thing. I feel that humans have a very anthropocentric belief and that humans feel the right to remove any resources from the land. Humans must learn to think long term about the actions we take that may cause terrible circumstances for future generations.
The Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin begins by pointing out that he feels that the ‘population problem’ is a ‘no technical solution problem’, meaning that the problem cannot be changed by a change in the techniques of the natural sciences. The ‘population problem’ is related to overpopulation and loss of current privileges.
Next the article describes what ‘tragedy of the common’ means. It uses an example of cattle farmers who share a public pasture. Long ago when there weren’t many cattle they could all share the pasture between all of their cattle without a problem. But as time went on and cattle numbers increased they each began to add more cattle to the pasture. Each farmer profited more from having increased cattle raised, but the pasture quality weakened as overgrazing occurred. The tragedy is that each farmer isn’t doing a lot of damage but together the combined damage is very detrimental. Another example used is public parks, which if many people continue to abuse will not be available for anyone in the future. How to determine who gets to use the park is the difficult task.
The article also discusses pollution as a form of tragedy of the commons as people all add their own wastes to the environment often thinking it’s their right, or that it will go unnoticed. But if 6.7 billion people do this it would cause unimaginable damage to the earth. The article also mentions population as an issue because people feel have the right to produce as many children as possible. Increased birth rates means there are more people to exploit the earth.
The article ends discussing that exploiting the commons would be justifiable if there was a low population. For example, when the cattle farmers had only few cows each the land could sustain the livestock with out really being exploited. The final point mentioned is that Hardin feels the most important thing to control is population, or breeding. He discusses overpopulation being the most pertinent issue today. He proposes that we control this issue by increasing education.
When having a similar discussion with my family about the world population I was on the same side as Hardin. I feel that people should be educated and that is shown to decrease birth rates, and I do feel that birth rates must be decreased quickly in a humane way. I think that if there was an easy way to control the world population that would be the best way to decrease environmental destruction, poverty, famine, and many other issues today. Unfortunately many places in the world have many children to increase the odds of having a child survive, and then having someone to care for them when their old. Also, in some areas people feel that children will work and bring home a profit for the family. But in developed countries generally people see children as more of an expense and must save money before having kids. I personally feel that it is socially irresponsible to have more children than you can reasonably afford to care for.
Will Hurricane Katrina Impact Shoreline Management?
This article discusses the impacts of hurricanes in the past. Hurricane Camille is discussed first, describing the debris and wreckage caused to Mississippi and surrounding areas. The article then describes the damage done b
y Hurricane Katrina. Dauphin Island (shown at left) is discussed as this is an island area which has been redeveloped after five hurricanes have done extreme damage to the area. It is then mentioned that perhaps this area should not be rebuilt because it is imminent that the area will be destroyed again by another storm. I agree with this statement because it would take huge amounts of money to rebuild this area each time it gets wiped out. Perhaps it’s possible that the land could be used for another purpose, for example maybe some of the land has high agricultural capability.
Next the article discusses the fact that one would assume that people would retreat from the shorelines but instead hurricanes have caused the opposite. Hurricanes have caused people to build bigger, better houses and buildings therefore increasing the property values in shoreline areas.
The article also discusses beach replenishment which is rebuilding beaches after a storm event. This is to delay shoreline retreat caused by rising sea level. Problems with this include that the beach looks stable but often isn’t. Often claims are made that the rebuilt beach will protect citizens from storms such as Katrina but with waves ten metres high a beach would not protect much at all. Also when moving sand onto a beach it kills organisms which can take up to four years for the populations to recover. Also, much tax money must be used in this process and it is not a solution to shoreline erosion.
Research has shown that with increasing sea temperatures caused by global warming we should expect more powerful storms than ever before. The authors state their belief that the federal government should stop repairing the vulnerable areas of the coast. Some issues that justify rebuilding are mentioned including the fact that the United States is a compassionate nation with people who feel sorry for those who have lost their houses and want to help them rebuild. The United States is proud and many will not be ‘chased from their own community’. Also, those who own property along the coast will continue to fight for their land.
The authors propose a committee that evaluates which vulnerable areas should no longer receive federal assistance. Many experts from Louisiana have promoted the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the delta’s barrier island claiming that it may have reduced Katrina’s impact on New Orleans, this the article states that this is false. Also experts believe that maintaining offshore islands would protect the wetlands, this is also stated to be false. The authors also state that there are other wetlands that should be restored before coastal wetlands should be. The authors state that restoring the costal areas of Louisiana should not be mislabelled as storm protection.
I agree with many of the points the authors have made in this reading. They state that coastal areas will continue to be devastated by storms which I believe is true. It is strange that people choose to continue living and rebuilding their homes in these areas, but perhaps I have no right to criticise. Perhaps if I lived there I would also be attached to the area and continue to rebuild. However, these areas are clearly a very dangerous place to live. So, maybe it is unjust to allow these people to continually put themselves at risk. I agree that wetland restoration is important but perhaps government money could be better spent repairing wetlands where they were less likely to be destroyed in just a short number of years. In my opinion, research shows that people should not live there, but to take human feelings into account that is where they want to live. It certainly would not be easy to ask an entire city to leave and make somewhere else ‘home’.
Ecosystems and Human Well-being
This article begins by addressing the fact that humans have altered many ecosystems for their own benefit. As alteration went on many regions as well as groups of people have benefited, but many have been harmed. Many ecosystems are being lost and degraded but measuring the damage is difficult. The people who incur the costs of the damaged ecosystem are most often poor or the next generation. In many areas we are causing likely irreversible changes such as ocean dead zones. Due to harmful effects especially impacting poor areas we are continually adding to the world class separation. It is expected that in the next forty years that use of ecosystem services will grow by three to six times, despite the fact that population growth is slowing.
Many factors are involved in the ecosystem degredation problem including climate change, decreased biodiversity, and the degredation of land. Often efforts are made to decrease ecosystem damage but they usually don’t last for long because of growing pressure and demand. Ecosystem management will require changes in government, economic policies, social factors, technology, and education. If many sectors for example, agriculture, forestry, finance, and health united much more could be accomplished.
During the second half of the twentieth century more change was done to the ecosystems of the world than at any other time in history. During this time much land was converted to cropland, much of the world’s coral reefs were lost, dams were built to impound water, nitrogen and phosphorus amounts significantly increased, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased, and species biodiversity is decreasing. Most often damage is done to ecosystems because of growing demands on each ecosystem. Demands often include food, fibre, water, timber, and fuel. Some of the changes have been beneficial because they led to reducing the amount of malnourished and unhealthy people.
The importance of being proactive and solving problems before they are extreme is stated. This includes using new laws and policies that are enforced to prevent further damage to ecosystems. The article mentions four scenarios including:
1. Global Orchestration- global society focused on trade and reducing poverty and inequality. Economic growth is high.
2. Order from Strength – security and protection is of high priority. Public goods are of low concern. Low economic growth and high population growth.
3. Adapting Mosaic – watershed scale ecosystems are of high importance. Economic growth begins low but increases, population growth is high.
4. TechnoGarden – globally connected, relies on environmentally safe technology, proactive in avoiding problems, high economic growth.
The article mentions the Millennium Development Goals which are an attempt by the United Nations to improve human well-being. The degradation of ecosystem services is a barrier to achieving these goals. Many regions facing problems with achieving their goals also are facing problems of ecosystem degradation. Three other goals specifically depend on management of ecosystem degradation; these include hunger, child mortality and disease.
Again the article review that attempts have been made to curb ecosystem degradation, and although they did help significantly, more must be done. The article mentions that in some cases we can use substitutes, for example using other materials other than wood, this can decrease pressure on specific ecosystems but may not necessarily be good for the environment. Often substitutes can be more expensive than the original product. The article describes five things as indirect drivers of change; population change, economic activity change, socio-political factors, cultural factors, and technological change. These factors have a huge effect on the use of ecosystem services. Often action can slow ecosystem degradation but don’t actually address these drivers. Often there are many barriers to these drivers including the market, government policies, education, and lack of funding.
I believe this is a very important issue for the world today. We don’t feel the effects in Canada today too much because we have enough food and resources to take care of ourselves, but in areas where this isn’t true people suffer greatly. Developed nations take advantage of underdeveloped countries by exploiting their resources and they don’t have the power to stop the more powerful nations. As time goes on if nothing is done to stop the overuse of ecosystem resources everyone will feel the effects. Unfortunately the generations of the future will feel the largest effect if nothing is done to stop the problem.
This article discusses the impacts of hurricanes in the past. Hurricane Camille is discussed first, describing the debris and wreckage caused to Mississippi and surrounding areas. The article then describes the damage done b
y Hurricane Katrina. Dauphin Island (shown at left) is discussed as this is an island area which has been redeveloped after five hurricanes have done extreme damage to the area. It is then mentioned that perhaps this area should not be rebuilt because it is imminent that the area will be destroyed again by another storm. I agree with this statement because it would take huge amounts of money to rebuild this area each time it gets wiped out. Perhaps it’s possible that the land could be used for another purpose, for example maybe some of the land has high agricultural capability.Next the article discusses the fact that one would assume that people would retreat from the shorelines but instead hurricanes have caused the opposite. Hurricanes have caused people to build bigger, better houses and buildings therefore increasing the property values in shoreline areas.
The article also discusses beach replenishment which is rebuilding beaches after a storm event. This is to delay shoreline retreat caused by rising sea level. Problems with this include that the beach looks stable but often isn’t. Often claims are made that the rebuilt beach will protect citizens from storms such as Katrina but with waves ten metres high a beach would not protect much at all. Also when moving sand onto a beach it kills organisms which can take up to four years for the populations to recover. Also, much tax money must be used in this process and it is not a solution to shoreline erosion.
Research has shown that with increasing sea temperatures caused by global warming we should expect more powerful storms than ever before. The authors state their belief that the federal government should stop repairing the vulnerable areas of the coast. Some issues that justify rebuilding are mentioned including the fact that the United States is a compassionate nation with people who feel sorry for those who have lost their houses and want to help them rebuild. The United States is proud and many will not be ‘chased from their own community’. Also, those who own property along the coast will continue to fight for their land.
The authors propose a committee that evaluates which vulnerable areas should no longer receive federal assistance. Many experts from Louisiana have promoted the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the delta’s barrier island claiming that it may have reduced Katrina’s impact on New Orleans, this the article states that this is false. Also experts believe that maintaining offshore islands would protect the wetlands, this is also stated to be false. The authors also state that there are other wetlands that should be restored before coastal wetlands should be. The authors state that restoring the costal areas of Louisiana should not be mislabelled as storm protection.
I agree with many of the points the authors have made in this reading. They state that coastal areas will continue to be devastated by storms which I believe is true. It is strange that people choose to continue living and rebuilding their homes in these areas, but perhaps I have no right to criticise. Perhaps if I lived there I would also be attached to the area and continue to rebuild. However, these areas are clearly a very dangerous place to live. So, maybe it is unjust to allow these people to continually put themselves at risk. I agree that wetland restoration is important but perhaps government money could be better spent repairing wetlands where they were less likely to be destroyed in just a short number of years. In my opinion, research shows that people should not live there, but to take human feelings into account that is where they want to live. It certainly would not be easy to ask an entire city to leave and make somewhere else ‘home’.
Ecosystems and Human Well-being
This article begins by addressing the fact that humans have altered many ecosystems for their own benefit. As alteration went on many regions as well as groups of people have benefited, but many have been harmed. Many ecosystems are being lost and degraded but measuring the damage is difficult. The people who incur the costs of the damaged ecosystem are most often poor or the next generation. In many areas we are causing likely irreversible changes such as ocean dead zones. Due to harmful effects especially impacting poor areas we are continually adding to the world class separation. It is expected that in the next forty years that use of ecosystem services will grow by three to six times, despite the fact that population growth is slowing.
Many factors are involved in the ecosystem degredation problem including climate change, decreased biodiversity, and the degredation of land. Often efforts are made to decrease ecosystem damage but they usually don’t last for long because of growing pressure and demand. Ecosystem management will require changes in government, economic policies, social factors, technology, and education. If many sectors for example, agriculture, forestry, finance, and health united much more could be accomplished.
During the second half of the twentieth century more change was done to the ecosystems of the world than at any other time in history. During this time much land was converted to cropland, much of the world’s coral reefs were lost, dams were built to impound water, nitrogen and phosphorus amounts significantly increased, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased, and species biodiversity is decreasing. Most often damage is done to ecosystems because of growing demands on each ecosystem. Demands often include food, fibre, water, timber, and fuel. Some of the changes have been beneficial because they led to reducing the amount of malnourished and unhealthy people.
The importance of being proactive and solving problems before they are extreme is stated. This includes using new laws and policies that are enforced to prevent further damage to ecosystems. The article mentions four scenarios including:
1. Global Orchestration- global society focused on trade and reducing poverty and inequality. Economic growth is high.
2. Order from Strength – security and protection is of high priority. Public goods are of low concern. Low economic growth and high population growth.
3. Adapting Mosaic – watershed scale ecosystems are of high importance. Economic growth begins low but increases, population growth is high.
4. TechnoGarden – globally connected, relies on environmentally safe technology, proactive in avoiding problems, high economic growth.
The article mentions the Millennium Development Goals which are an attempt by the United Nations to improve human well-being. The degradation of ecosystem services is a barrier to achieving these goals. Many regions facing problems with achieving their goals also are facing problems of ecosystem degradation. Three other goals specifically depend on management of ecosystem degradation; these include hunger, child mortality and disease.
Again the article review that attempts have been made to curb ecosystem degradation, and although they did help significantly, more must be done. The article mentions that in some cases we can use substitutes, for example using other materials other than wood, this can decrease pressure on specific ecosystems but may not necessarily be good for the environment. Often substitutes can be more expensive than the original product. The article describes five things as indirect drivers of change; population change, economic activity change, socio-political factors, cultural factors, and technological change. These factors have a huge effect on the use of ecosystem services. Often action can slow ecosystem degradation but don’t actually address these drivers. Often there are many barriers to these drivers including the market, government policies, education, and lack of funding.
I believe this is a very important issue for the world today. We don’t feel the effects in Canada today too much because we have enough food and resources to take care of ourselves, but in areas where this isn’t true people suffer greatly. Developed nations take advantage of underdeveloped countries by exploiting their resources and they don’t have the power to stop the more powerful nations. As time goes on if nothing is done to stop the overuse of ecosystem resources everyone will feel the effects. Unfortunately the generations of the future will feel the largest effect if nothing is done to stop the problem.
Andy Goldsworthy
The art of Andy Goldsworthy is in one word, calming. After watching videos and visiting website for this artist I found that everything I saw was soothing, beautiful, and so natural. Andy has photos of many nature scenes as well as pictures of nature that he has turned into something beautiful, such as the orange and red leaves that he forms into a circle with the black hole in the middle. The art doesn’t seem to mean anything but leaves much room for personal interpretation. Another point I have noticed is that the music in all videos is very relaxing.
In the video “Rivers & Tides” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw
v=3TWBSMc47bw Andy speaks about how he only feels like himself when he is around nature. He enjoys being by himself in nature. While watching this video as Andy is building a piece of art I wondered to myself how many of Andy’s art pieces I had seen before in the media. I would guess I’ve seen quite a few before. His art piece came crashing down and I must feel so bad for him because of all that work, but it is also somewhat humorous. Andy must have a lot of patience. In “River and Tides (extraits 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9TyHzP-8b8 I am again amazed by his artwork. For someone to make art out of icicles must be extremely difficult.
Throughout the videos Andy speaks about his appreciation for the earth which he uses to make artwork. He does not feel that the earth needs him. My favourite video was “Rivers and Tides” and my favourite part was the circle made of leaves that began yellow and darkened to red. Andy’s artwork is inspiring and leaves you wanting to go for a walk in the forest. Too bad it’s so cold.
The art of Andy Goldsworthy is in one word, calming. After watching videos and visiting website for this artist I found that everything I saw was soothing, beautiful, and so natural. Andy has photos of many nature scenes as well as pictures of nature that he has turned into something beautiful, such as the orange and red leaves that he forms into a circle with the black hole in the middle. The art doesn’t seem to mean anything but leaves much room for personal interpretation. Another point I have noticed is that the music in all videos is very relaxing.
In the video “Rivers & Tides” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw
v=3TWBSMc47bw Andy speaks about how he only feels like himself when he is around nature. He enjoys being by himself in nature. While watching this video as Andy is building a piece of art I wondered to myself how many of Andy’s art pieces I had seen before in the media. I would guess I’ve seen quite a few before. His art piece came crashing down and I must feel so bad for him because of all that work, but it is also somewhat humorous. Andy must have a lot of patience. In “River and Tides (extraits 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9TyHzP-8b8 I am again amazed by his artwork. For someone to make art out of icicles must be extremely difficult.Throughout the videos Andy speaks about his appreciation for the earth which he uses to make artwork. He does not feel that the earth needs him. My favourite video was “Rivers and Tides” and my favourite part was the circle made of leaves that began yellow and darkened to red. Andy’s artwork is inspiring and leaves you wanting to go for a walk in the forest. Too bad it’s so cold.
Discussion
In class we were asked to describe how we rely on the environment in a physical ways. I rely on the environment everyday to eat. All food I eat is produced by the environment, using soil, water, and nutrients, all of which must be managed properly. I think this is my main reliance on nature. Also important is the nature that built the house that I live in. Although many of the building products are likely synthetic most things likely came from some form of nature. Nature is also something to enjoy. Each day I rollerblade home from class and appreciate the nature we have here, the birds, the grass, and the trees.
We were also asked what promotes human connection to nature. I actually think that human connection to nature is promoted on television. Channels like discovery channel give people an opportunity to experience nature that may be on the other side of the world that they cannot see. I feel that some televisions shows, commercials, movies, etc. promote an appreciation for nature because we appreciate things more that we don’t see. For example, anyone who lives in rural Manitoba probably doesn’t appreciate deer very much but if we were to see a kangaroo, which is thought of similarly in Australia, we would likely be pretty amazed.
What promotes a human disconnection to nature? I don’t really think disconnection with nature is ever ‘promoted’ but in many cases the effects on nature are hidden from the public. For example, until recently people weren’t told how much of a negative effect burning fossil fuels had on the environment.
Is a deeper connection to nature likely to influence our decisions? I believe this is probably yes, however I feel that I appreciate nature a lot but I still often take advantage of it. I drive more than I need to, and I don’t recycle as much as I should. Perhaps if I spent more time outside I would, but I think most important is public education to promote sustainable decision making. We were asked to discuss where our environmental ethics lie. I feel that I am most likely a mix of all three ecocentric, biocentric and anthropocentric. I believe that basically everything we have comes from nature. I am from a farm so I can appreciate that everything I eat in a day had to be produced somewhere with inputs from nature, this makes me ecocentric and biocentric. At the same time I often take advantage of the environment. I do feel that humans are the most powerful species, and I know that we necessarily, and unnecessarily, take advantage of other species. I think I’m fairly understanding of the environment but at the same time I am somewhat selfish, this makes me a mix of all three beliefs.
In class we were asked to describe how we rely on the environment in a physical ways. I rely on the environment everyday to eat. All food I eat is produced by the environment, using soil, water, and nutrients, all of which must be managed properly. I think this is my main reliance on nature. Also important is the nature that built the house that I live in. Although many of the building products are likely synthetic most things likely came from some form of nature. Nature is also something to enjoy. Each day I rollerblade home from class and appreciate the nature we have here, the birds, the grass, and the trees.
We were also asked what promotes human connection to nature. I actually think that human connection to nature is promoted on television. Channels like discovery channel give people an opportunity to experience nature that may be on the other side of the world that they cannot see. I feel that some televisions shows, commercials, movies, etc. promote an appreciation for nature because we appreciate things more that we don’t see. For example, anyone who lives in rural Manitoba probably doesn’t appreciate deer very much but if we were to see a kangaroo, which is thought of similarly in Australia, we would likely be pretty amazed.
What promotes a human disconnection to nature? I don’t really think disconnection with nature is ever ‘promoted’ but in many cases the effects on nature are hidden from the public. For example, until recently people weren’t told how much of a negative effect burning fossil fuels had on the environment.
Is a deeper connection to nature likely to influence our decisions? I believe this is probably yes, however I feel that I appreciate nature a lot but I still often take advantage of it. I drive more than I need to, and I don’t recycle as much as I should. Perhaps if I spent more time outside I would, but I think most important is public education to promote sustainable decision making. We were asked to discuss where our environmental ethics lie. I feel that I am most likely a mix of all three ecocentric, biocentric and anthropocentric. I believe that basically everything we have comes from nature. I am from a farm so I can appreciate that everything I eat in a day had to be produced somewhere with inputs from nature, this makes me ecocentric and biocentric. At the same time I often take advantage of the environment. I do feel that humans are the most powerful species, and I know that we necessarily, and unnecessarily, take advantage of other species. I think I’m fairly understanding of the environment but at the same time I am somewhat selfish, this makes me a mix of all three beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment