Environmental ethics refers to the relationship that humans share with the natural world (Buzzle, 2011), it involves people extending ethics to the natural environment through the exercise of self-discipline (Nash, 1989). Herein the essay will give examples of anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism as forms of environmental ethics, criticizing anthropocentrism in contrast with a defence of non- anthropocentrism precedents. Anthropocentrism also referred to as human-centeredness, is an individualistic approach, a concept stating that humans are more valuable, and the environment is only useful for sustaining the lives of human beings (MacKinnon, 2007). The practise of human-centeredness is associated with egocentrism (Goodpaster, 1979), by contrast non-anthropocentrism is a holistic approach
In Leviathan, Hobbes constructs his political framework around a set of assumptions and beliefs regarding human nature when it is unrestrained by a sovereign and not within a societal framework, or “commonwealth”. Broadly, this theoretical state of being is called the “natural condition of mankind” or, a state of nature. Hobbes reaches the state of nature theory by methodically evaluating the core motivations and realities of human nature (as he sees them), as well as via evaluating newly discovered “savage people in many places of America.” As such, the state of nature, that is human nature, is the scaffolding from which the totality of his political theory is built upon, and with which he justifies the need for a Leviathan. Therefore, for Hobbesian political theory to be valid, all primary and core assumptions must also be valid, due to the methodical and mechanistic character of Hobbesian political theory. As a result, the question must be asked; to what extent is Hobbesian political theory dependent upon a feasible and accurate state of nature as he describes it?
Emerson writes “The human being, like the natural world in which he lives, is untamed. However, there is an order within man, as there is within nature, if only he takes the time to study and understand his own system.”
According to Jos de Mul (The convergence of evolution, humanism and information technology), they share the anthropological and ontological postulates of modern humanism. Transhumanism agrees with the view of humanism that humankind is subject to the forces of nature, there is equality, interdependence and freedom (a constant practical freedom of choice) among people. The definition of the human being for both of them, transhumanism and humanism, includes rationality and being responsible for their self and society as a whole. The image of the world for humanists, as well as transhumanists, is realistic. Both movements discard the existence of the preconceived (divine) plan and emphasize the contingency and dynamic of reality.
Our brains are heavily evolved pattern-recognition systems that have major tendency to connect the dots and interpret it in order to generate meaning and association from the patterns. Connecting the dots of nature that involves the categorization of anything and everything from social stratifications like status, power and wealth that are often ordered in a hierarchy structure to race and religion. Despite the naturality of it, dogmatic ways of thinking has led to the rejection of people’s ability to interpret patterns in nature thus inhibiting our ability as a species to broaden our perspective and gain knowledge for the progression of our development as a species. Furthermore, the strong tendency can occasionally lead to patternicity, the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise which generally describes the illusory correlation of patterns of which refers to the fabricated relationship of non-associated variables as triggered by our natural instinct to seek
Nature and technology should be looked at as binary opposites. The debate of nature or technology being seen as the dominant system is unclear and cannot be ruled out, as nature is untouched by man, everything technology adapts from nature was found on earth, whilst technology is the programming of nature, it takes characteristics from nature and is altered by man. Technology is becoming biology and vice-versa ( Arthur
In other words, we should hold a dialectical mind if we are to treat nature properly. This is decided by nature’s dual character. In the above paragraphs, we have argued about Frost’s interpretation on nature, namely, nature has two sides, one other the bright side and the dark side. These two edges are opposed to each other, but they cannot be detached from each other. To hold a dialectical mind to interpretation nature, we must compute both sides.
To give clarity to this research, the researcher uses the following definitions. Technology is the “manipulation of nature” (Karve, 2009) for human purpose. On the other hand, dependency on technology is a “two-edged sword” (Digital Trends Staff, 2014). Technology is a machine or equipment that is used for human activities. According to Karve (2009), technology is the manipulation of nature which man is a part of nature.
Humanities can be described as the documentation of people’s lives and their experiences. This will focus on the geography aspect and explains the differences and similarities of physical and human geography, how settlements grow, the pollution and how this effects the environment. Physical geography is the study of the Earths natural features like mountains and rivers and how they where formed but also how this can divide countries like Australia. While human geography are man made thing, even when its something “natural” like the Palm Islands in Dubai being the biggest artificial island, or the movement of water in canals, these are still man made. But also how humans develop they’re surrounding to operate easier. Societies can come in many shapes and purposes like for example Jakarta, Indonesia was a port settlement but it was also a Dutch settlement.
Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own( Brundtland Report, 1987). It is an area of environmental philosophy that faces a lot of conflict due to the various subdivisions in terms of ethical perceptions. For traditional and religious views, some people believe they were given dominion over nature’s plants and animals to serve their needs.The techno-centric ideology is centered is centred on technology and it’s ability to control and protect the environment, it is almost arrogant in it’s assumption that humans have control over nature. The ‘ecological footprint’ (Gaston 2005, p.239) that resulted from humans’ greediness has lead over the decades to massive alteration in nature’s balance, as well as many recognizable environmental crises the world is facing today. By contrast, eco-centrism recognizes a nature-centerd systemof values and extends the inherent worth to all living thigs regardless of their usefulness to humans (Mackinnon 2007, p. 336).