I totally agree with the argument that “The root cause even of physical and ecological problems are the inner constraints on our vision and values ...". This is mainly because of the human attitudes and tendencies towards the environment, and their consumption and reproduction patterns. Human being relationship with the environment has evolved rapidly over the years as mankind continue to increase his egocentric tendencies of desiring to maximize their wealth, consumption and reproduction (Gross, p.165). This argument can be explained by this week’s readings from the article by Rita M. Gross “Toward a Buddhist Environmental Ethic” as she tries to explain and apply Buddhist theories to issues concerning the environment. It is imperative to note that mankind’s desire to increase his consumption and reproduction are the main causes of ecological and physical problems. Another issue that Gross claims to be a cause of ecological crisis is that of ignorance. Also, our patterns of consumption, as Claxton argues are a main cause of ecological crisis.
Human beings are motivated to do things by their desires and cravings which in turn results in environmental degradation and problems. The more a man consumes or reproduces, the more he feels that he has satisfied his or her desires and has attained happiness therefore,
…show more content…
Human beings reprioritize their values with an attempt of ensuring a more sustainable relationship with the environment. They do this by reducing their rate of consumption and desire to accumulate material possession. Claxton claims that the human behavior, belief systems and values are responsible for creating an experience that may be understood as presupposition of the system or may not be understood at all (p.75). The goal of attaining maximum material possession hinders mankind’s environmental
The author fails to make compelling arguments on the environment since he does not use sufficient academic references for his information; and misunderstands the generalization issue. McKitrick
When you see a litterbug throw the rest of their half-eaten lunch on the ground or dispose of a cigarette out their Hummer window, you might be disgusted by the fact that, that someone negatively impacts the environment. Most human beings know that our negative actions towards the environment have a ripple effect like a drop in the ocean. However, not everyone cares or sees the impact that we all individually have on the earth. In the essay, Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism, John Berlau, an American economist, debates that conserving and preserving our environment is unnecessary and environmentalist should chill out with this save the planet bull crap. This essay comes directly from Berlau’s book called, Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism
In our world today, the aspect of materialism as greatly impact who we are as a people together and has taken over our lives. Through the ambition of trying to obtain certain tangible objects, it can take over the perceptive mindset of a person and cause them to aspire for a false reality. So, this longing of ownership of these tangible items can either have a lasting impact of encouragement and passion or it can have a dismissive impact on one’s character. More often than not, I believe that in today’s world, people
We consistently destroy our ozone, over fish and destroy ecosystems. I love the connection Ishmael made between bible fables and the leavers point of view. The narrator learned that there are different points of view to a single event. Us, as human must learn this lesson, then we can finally come together and work towards a more sustainable
The concept of environmental justice was first introduced in South Africa at the Earthlife 1992 conference (Cock 2004, p.6). Defined as the ‘fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies’ (U.S Environment Protection Agency, 2012), environmental justice aims to shift the world towards environmentally friendly development and eradicate exploitation of natural resources and indigenous communities. Most importantly, it deals mainly with the environmental injustices of these relationships, and the ways and means of rectifying these wrongs and/or avoiding them in the future
Also, the vast release of carbon dioxide from people’s factories, uses of the air conditioner and cars has resulted in global warming, which afflicts polar bears to near extinction. Similarly, deforestation excessively annihilates habitats of many forest animals, resulting in an immense decrease in their population. All of these do not represent harmony in nature at all. If humans continue to ruin the shelters of animals, no wonder humans will die eventually because of the unbalanced population of each species and the destruction of the world. To sum up, humans seriously have to stop their affliction of other animals and the earth and start to contemplate on the significance of harmony in nature because humans can only survive under harmonious relationship between nature in the
Our environment had been endangered of becoming unsafe, threatening, and even deadly. “The water we drink, the food we eat, the very air that we breathe, are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded, our seashores overburdened. Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.” Johnson stresses that the health of people and environment is at risk because Americans have allowed for the destruction of nature to get out of hand, and causing both the Earth and human health at risk of becoming an ugly America, due to –as Johnson references- the “Ugly American” (“Great Society”).
Jane Goodall, a primatologist, ethologist, and anthropologist, explains that the greatest risk to our future is lacking enthusiasm and concern about its outcome. Considering Goodall is extremely environmentally keen, it is more than likely she is emphasizing this towards the future of the entire ecosystem, including plants and animals, rather than only the future of the human race. She explains that if the human race falls to a deficiency of caring about our environment, it can and will lead to a vast threat to the future of the world’s ecosystem. Often humans forget about the importance of the ecosystem and instead we become caught up in ourselves and our own individual needs. Goodall is stressing that if these egotistical human acts continue to occur, the future of our ecosystem is in jeopardy.
We fetishize and admire it, and then we destroy it. Pease says “if men’s relationship with nature is founded on hegemonic masculinity, then a nonoppressive relationship with nature will require a transformation of dominant ways of being a man, if not a retreat from manhood itself” (Pease 121). In many other real-world examples, reason dominates nature. Not only do we abuse our planet by taking what we need to eat—and more, but also taking what we want to study. Many cases around the world prove this idea that we need to be the only one to obtain something; collectors cars, one-of-a-kind NFTS, and extinct species.
Safely housed within three stories houses, acquiring desires with a click of a button, and with the ability to move from one location to another faster than what should be possible, humans have constructed a bubble of comfort around themselves in order to deny the possibility of extinction that lurks around the outside and threatens to enter. Since humanity established themselves on the Earth, they have become increasingly more consumeristic; we are driven by our proclivity to want more. Mark A. Burch’s book (2013) entitled The Hidden Door: Mindful Sufficiency as an Alternative to Extinction addresses the concern of consumer culture and suggests mindful sufficiency as a contrasting lifestyle to the present consumerism. In dialogue with Burch,
Two extreme, competing environmental worldviews are the Western worldview and the deep ecology worldview. These two worldviews, admittedly broad generalizations, are at nearly opposite ends of a spectrum of worldviews relevant to global sustainability problems, and each approaches environmental responsibility in a radically different way. The traditional Western worldview, also known as the expansionist worldview, is human-centered and utilitarian. It mirrors the beliefs of the 19th-century frontier attitude, a desire to conquer and exploit nature as quickly as possible (Figure 2.5).
When in actuality, every living thing is derived from the same source, the universe. There is one life community on our planet, and humans exist within the earth community. Knowing this, there is a need to reintegrate the human species into a mutually enhancing relationship with the earth community. Aligning human actions with the ecological imperative involves adjusting our definition of what is good and bad. For a derivative species, good actions are defined those that enhance nature and humans, while bad actions are those that are destructive toward nature.
A significant number of international human rights and environmental instruments show how environmental protection contributes to the enjoyment of human rights. Human rights became a focus of international law long before environmental concerns did. While the United Nations Charter of 1945 marked the beginning of modern international human rights law, the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 is generally seen as the starting point of the modern international framework for environmental protection. Certain international human rights instruments concluded after the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment explicitly recognized the linkage between human rights and the environment.
We have grown to see our parents have children, build houses, buy cars cultivate farmlands, explore timber and many other aspects. I think that this is the time to ask ourselves the question how good or bad are our actions to the environment? We should not inherit the habits of our forefathers because we are now responsible for the consequences of our action base on consequential ethics which states that it is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences. And in this case, if we apply sustainable development and consequential ethics, I am sure that we will protect our environment looking at it as a social
Introduction: Our earth is the most precious gift of the universe. It is the sustenance of ‘nature’ that is the key to the development of the future of mankind. It is the duty and responsibility of each one of us to protect nature. It is here that the understanding of the ‘environment’ comes into the picture. The degradation of our environment is linked with the development process and the ignorance of people about retaining the ecological balance.