What should I do when facing environmental issues?

Inevitably, similar environmental issues as above have surfaced throughout human history and in answering the above question, one would normally consent with the principle of environmentalism- upholding a practice in protecting natural resources and ecosystems. However, if I were to do something when facing the above predicament, I would resort to the method on which I would lead my good life. In this case, I would just make clear to those oblivious people within my reach, informing them that going green to save the planet is just an effort of waste and there is no point doing it. I believe I have the responsibility to "enlighten" to those who still believe that environmentalism is a correct thing to deal with the problem. I always ask this question: Why when facing environmental problems, we have to conceit and think that somehow we are a threat that we are going to put in jeopardy to this Earth when the fact is that there is nothing wrong with the Earth? The Earth has been here for a very long time and has gone through many major disasters and it will heal itself after a while. The Earth is a self-correcting system. Therefore, when it comes to the notion of "environmentalism", saving the environment is not really saving the environment; perhaps it is saving the humanity, saving ourselves?

Matt Ridley and Bobbi S. Low began (1993) their essay "Can Selfishness Save the Environment" with:


    Conventional wisdom has it that the way to avert global ecological disaster is
    to persuade people to change their selfish habits for the common good.
    A more sensible approach would be to tap a boundless and renewable resource:
    the human propensity for thinking mainly of short term self-interest

The keyword "selfish habits" and "short term self-interest" are the notions that speak forth the intention behind all our efforts in trying to be environmental. In this essay, my main objective is to prove that environmentalism is another arrogant egotistical attempt by human beings- a selfish act! To do it, I am going to portray how humanity conscience towards environmental movement has been twisted along the history. Then I shall explain why preservation or conservation are not of altruistic reasons but for selfish reasons. I will also provide details for why people seem not to recognize the reflection of their own values in conservation movement. Everything here in order to show the role for environmental ethics has not been properly understood in relation to the relevant epistemology, philosophy of science and especially decision theory.

First, we begin from investigating the history for the concern the environmental case. In 1886, Ernst Haeckel (1966) gave the concept of an economy of nature with the name "Ecology", meaning "chaotic free-for-all" but the subsequent arcadian and romantic intellectual counter currents to eighteenth-century rationalism and mechanism had given the proto-ecological notion of natural economy a more integrative and holistic cast-Ecology as it eventually emerged as a distinct discipline of natural history was shaped by a complex of governing metaphors derived from these traditions (Callicott, 1989, pg105). Then, the modern environmental movement, which was a reaction to industrialization, came to light to advocate the sustainable management of resources, and the protection and restoration of the natural environment through changes in public policy and individual behaviour (Fleming and Bethany, 2006)

More recently, the changing centrality of the axiological problem for environmental ethics has then been reiterated to this stage where Tom Regan, in his essay "Intrinsic Value, Quantum Theory and Environmental Ethics" (Callicott, 1989, pg 157) says:

"The development of what can properly be called an environmental ethic requires that we postulate inherent value in nature." Otherwise, a putative environmental ethic would collapse into a "management ethic," an ethical for the "use of the environmental", not an ethic the beneficiary of which is the environment per se"

Regan does not detail much about what the "inherent value in nature" is but Rolston in "Humans Valuing the Natural Environment" (Rolston, 1988, pg1-23), has shown us that the importance of environmental ethics can be valued from these 14 types of different values: (1)life-support, (2)economic, (3)recreational, (4)scientific, (5)aesthetic, (6)genetic-diversity, (7)historical, (8)cultural-symbolization, (9)character-building, (10)diversity-unity, (11)spontaneity and (12)stability, (13)dialectic, (14)life and religious. () According to Regan, inherent value must be objective and independent of any valuing consciousness; however, we mostly ground the inherent value very often only in human being. Thus, this displays how self-interest in us can prove how selfish we are.

In illustration, when applying these values in the modern materialistic world today, we notice environmental affairs tend to bend towards certain value. Mainly, it is for economical reasons. Valuing economic for environmental purpose, this is where when business interrupt the ecosystem to assert its corporate self-interest at the expense of the biosystemic as a whole (Rolston, 1988 pg303). This is accurate as many cases of social responsibility dealing with environmental affairs, actions to "legislate" morality" are seen, at least in minimum essential or common-denominator areas. Apparently, the outcome of this has come to light where management ethic for the commons can be seen– about soil, air, water, pollution, environmental quality, the ozone layer, mutagens, wildlife, endangered species, future generations. For example, in Australia, we have a mass social movement willingly supported by millions of citizens that challenges the most powerful interests in society like The Landcare movement, The anti-litter movement, the green movement, Anti-nuclear movement and others (Hutton and Connors, 1999 and McLeod 1995).

All such movements are examples of a phenomenon throughout the history of mankind that we have been fighting over what to do with public domains, how much to reserve as commons and how much to pass into private ownership. Undeniably, every movement wants to create its environmental policy to provide an ethic for the commons but the problem has yet been solved especially in the trusting of which policy can be helpful to make the world a better and greener place. However, we do know something-ethics is enforced and written into law and therefore be mandatory.

Next, the part when it comes to the ethical considerations in relation to human efforts to conserve the natural environment, we need to understand a few things which people have failed to notice. First, we need understand that no such thing as policy exists in nature. Policy arises when human corporately and deliberately confront their environment (Rolston, 1988, pg 246). The environment is crucially a "commons," that is, a public good. To elaborate on this, the nature does not have the environmental policy; it just appeared in the decade of the 1960s when there was a major ecological revolution-a revolution in consciousness concerning our outlook toward other species and the need to protect the integrity of wild ecosystem. This was when the ecology movement started to rise. One contributing factor that "fired up" this revolution was perhaps the industrial revolution gave rise to modern environmental pollution as it is generally understood today.

As far as valuing economic is the reason to be concerned, we have to put it to our mind that government and big business firms are, strictly speaking, not moral agents at all. They are as instruments of the persons within them they can do large amounts of right and wrong to us from their "invented" policies. (Rolston, 1988, pg 248). We have to be cautions on this because we might end up with them in the same position if we follow what they ask us to do. In addition to that, in regards to the environmental policies they introduce to us, we need to be aware that they are in a way related to capitalism. Hence, we have to recognise that the forces of capitalism may shape us into developing a selfish self for the entire community, a community with an environment which would cultivate selfishness to the residing people. When environmental ethics is rooted into what that regulates humanity, it may be a portrayal of the true colors of Marxism in humanity that we are living a capitalist way of environmental consciousness- we have been made selfish in a world that introduces us the necessity for competing for an environmental conscious life. The consequences from this kind of practical outlook by government and business are large influence in our lives. One of the most important consequences is that we become oblivious to the fact that "environmentalism" is not quite the concern for the protection of the environment but "saving of the humanity".

"Saving the humanity" seems to be one of the reasons Richard Routley has shown to us in his paper entitled "Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?" which was published in 1973. Routley regards the environmental ethic in the western culture as "normal Western ethics" in which he claims it in effect, only instrumental, not intrinsic, value for nonhuman natural entities and nature as a whole (Callicott, 1989, pg 159). Routley intuitively depicts the universal assumption of an axiology in which only people are intrinsically valuable in ethics when good comes first to them and everything else a bad last. Routley calls it as "Basic (human) chauvinism" He demonstrates various examples including actions that mess up the environment and natural things. One of them is the "vanishing species" example in which he shows us that there are situations they would do nothing morally wrong even for the case of extirpating species. Routley shows that all these engagements of environmental degrading activities, permissible actions that rebound on the environment are still narrowly circumscribed.

Now, when extirpating a species can be morally correct in certain cases, it seems that we are now experiencing the difficulties in drawing the line to separate the correct from the wrong. Environmentalism in this case, becomes subjective. Probably, the condition now is that environmentalists are finding hard to judge the right from the wrong when facing environmental problems. Therefore, instead of really "protecting the environment", they become obsessed in saving what wildness remains, just to guarantee that we do not make irrersible mistake (Leopold 1970, pg 190). Apart from that, they support environmental regulation consistent with profitability and the expansion of global capitalism such as resource conservation for long-run profitability and profit-oriented regulation or abolition of pollution-they are typically allied with national and international interest

George Carlin, a social critic, commented his point of view regarding the issue of environment at Madison Square Gardens, New York, live on air as well as to the 6,500 people who were there. Basically, Carlin mentioned that human beings are very self-important and selfish. He stated there is no point saving the planet when we cannot save ourselves yet. Also, Carlin believed that there is nothing wrong in the planet but there is something wrong with the people. (Connor 1997)



    "The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things
    worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift,
    solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds
    of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors,
    worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice
    ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a
    difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE
    ARE!"(George Carlin-The Planet is Fine)

Derek Parfit, an Oxford philosopher, ended his book "Reason and Persons" with a note somehow similar to the idea of Carlin. He wrote: "The Earth will remain inhabitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these few thousands year may be only a tiny fraction of the whole civilized human history…" (1984, pg 454)

On the basis of these reflections what conclusions may be reached? I have argued that how we value environmental ethic has shown us that we failed to recognize the reflection in the environmental ethics. I have depicted the situation in which we are now experiencing ourselves being constantly torn between the drive to advance our self interest and the "real" ethics. Both ethic and self-interest seem to be in conflict and mixed up together. The role for environmental ethics has not been properly understood in relation to the relevant epistemology, philosophy of science and especially decision theory. Therefore, it is vital that when it comes to questions dealing with ethical issues, we need to know are we in the right track to see the right picture and provide the right answer. In the modern world today, when asked about what to do in regards to an environmental question, I believe we need to ask ourselves are we valuing it mainly for our self-interest because if it is, we then are oblivious to that entire ethical understanding for we are experiencing a failure in looking the picture genuinely.

(2132 words)

Bibliography:

Callicott, Baird (1989), "The Defense of the Land Ethic", State University of New York Press, Albany.

Connor, James O, 1997, Socialism and Ecology, Guilford Press, London

Fleming, James R.; Bethany R. Knorr. "History of the Clean Air Act". American Meteorological Society. http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/. Retrieved 2006-02-14

George Carlin-The Planet is Fine, viewed June 8^th, http://www.icomedytv.com/Comedy-Videos/ID/335/George-Carlin--The-Planet-Is-Fine-Transcript-0739.aspx

Haeckel, Ernst, (1966), "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, 2 vols, Berlin, Reimer

Hutton, Drew & Connors, Libby (1999), A history of Australian Environmental movement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

McLeod, Roy (1995). "Resistance to Nuclear Technology: Optimists, Opportunists and Opposition in Australian Nuclear History" in Martin Bauer (ed) Resistance to New Technology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-177.

Leopold, Aldo, "the round River," in A Sand County Almanac (New York: Sierra Club/Ballantine Books, 1970), p 190

Parfit, Derek, (1984) Reasons and Persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pg 454

Rolston, Holmes (1988). "Environmental Ethics: Environmental Policy: An Ethic of the Commons", Temple University Press,

Ridley, Matt and Low, Bobbi (1993), "Can Selfishness Save The Environment?",viewed 8^th June 2010, http://people.umass.edu/envsc101/e101/selfish.pdf