Ecosystem vs. Species Preservation Perspectives The article "Values and Duties to the Natural World" by Holmes Rolston emphasizes intrinsic value in ecosystems over individual species preservation due to the complex relationships within them. Rolston argues that ecosystems necessitate higher preservation efforts as they are vital for sustaining a healthy and efficient environment. If an ecosystem collapses or declines and cannot function properly, it can cause systemic collapse. While every species within an ecosystem is significant, the failure of a single species might not trigger as severe consequences as the disruption of the entire supporting system. Rolston believes that each species contributes to ecosystem health and efficiency, and …show more content…
The fatal flaws she finds in traditional arguments include the inability to justify differential treatment based on species membership, conceptual confusion in ascribing value to a species, and the inadequacy of appeals to stewardship, extrinsic value, and intrinsic value. Russow argues that traditional analyses often rely on using individual species classifications as the sole determinant of assigning value or making treatment decisions. This approach cannot account for the different circumstances of individual animals within a species, and disregards individual worth, as she believes protection and value lie in the aesthetics of a species. Russow believes that conceptual confusion, which refers to the ambiguity surrounding the attribution of value to a species, is one flaw in defining what makes up the value of a species. The last flaw centers on our obligation as stewards of the environment, protecting endangered species, and the insufficiency to fully address moral obligations toward individual animals (Russow, 1981, p. 137). Whether Russow's concerns are fatal depends on individual perspective, as she advocates valuing species based on …show more content…
By providing foreign food aid to underprivileged nations, the root cause is not solved because although immediate hunger is alleviated, the underlying issue of resource scarcity and overpopulation is left unresolved (Hardin, 2001, p. 36). Hardin also opposes permissive immigration policies, arguing that unrestricted immigration causes strain on available resources within these nations (Hardin, 2001, p. 44). Allowing a large number of people to migrate to wealthier countries leads to environmental degradation, social tension, and decreased quality of life for the native population as well as for the immigrants. These policies ignore the ecological carrying capacity of areas and perpetuate the cycle of population growth, which is unsustainable. From an environmentalist perspective, there could be a conflict between humanitarianism and land ethic. Land ethics prioritize responsible natural resource stewardship, humanitarianism prioritizes the well-being and welfare of individuals. The challenges arise when actions taken to fulfill humanitarian goals inadvertently contribute to environmental degradation. For example, humanitarian efforts to build shelters in response to natural disasters or refugee crises result in habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. Overusing resources to provide for the current population as well
The sixth major case of Endangered Specie. The laboratory Rats are bred every year to serve various scientific purposes. Once the test are complete the rat are rapidly killed, with the result that the variety becomes extinct.
One view on preserving biodiversity argues that it is imperative solely because species have intrinsic value. In his “What is Conservation Biology?” Soulé argues that the primary aim of conservation is the protection and continuity of entire communities and ecosystems, with an emphasis on protecting biodiversity because species have intrinsic or inherent value (Soulé 728). While it is valid that species should be conserved because they have value in themselves, it is not enough, nor is it the only aim of conservation. Soulé elaborates, however, that it is also important to improve biodiversity by modifying the rate at which biodiversity is changed because small changes in the present can yield large-scale results in the long run (733). This
The preservation of any species that contributes to the biodiversity of an area. In an ecosystem, the absence of one species creates unfavorable conditions for the others. The. The absence of the spotted owl could have a significant effect on the North Coast forest ecosystems. In order to send the owl population to the right.
Overprotection of Biodiversity "Extinction is normal"(pg26, 1st paragraph). However, the rate this process is happening is up to us, to some extent. In this article, two sides are discussing this rate. One side is arguing that biodiversity is overprotected and the other the opposite. The first argument, against protection of biodiversity, states that "at a macro level, there is a tradeoff between production/consumption of timber and production/consumption of related environmental amenities"(pg28, 2nd paragraph).
The world naturally corrects the over-population problems with famine and disease and Americans make any effort they can to stop the suffering. The “guilt factor” represented in scenario four of the lifeboat ethics directly relates to this. We feel bad the poor and homeless can’t protect themselves from these disasters so Americans do anything to save them. We save those who would’ve otherwise died in the crisis. We increase the population of an environment without expanding, causing more crisis. Inevitably, more people end up dying due to starvation or malnutrition. Thus, the never-ending cycle of the rich saving the poor continues. If other countries keep intervening by delivering food and aid to nations when they are in trouble, they end up making the next crisis even more
Since ancient Greek times, the stories of heroes seemed to take the world by storm. Tales of these half-human half- gods intrigued many people and endured for centuries. This mythology has created one of the most successful movie genres in the world, making millions of dollars in box offices and sales in merchandise. The popularity of heroes did not go away over time, but rather it increased to a point where they are placed on a pedestal. Their stories and movies not only discuss important attributes people should have, but reflect the type of “savior” needed to fix the societal problems we face. The causes of their popularity are quite simple, people love entertainment and their ability to relate to the character. However, upon closer examination
Deena Robinson says, “the Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest, at the expense of other individuals. This can result in overconsumption, underinvestment, and depletion of resources.” (Robinson, 2024) With finite resources, whenever a resource is consumed or gained, the availability of that resource is taken away from society. Hardin gives an example of a farmer who adopts additional cattle onto his farm. As a consequence, overgrazing can occur and reduce the resources available to the
It is a known fact that the world population is increasing without bound; however, there is a debate if this increase is a good thing or if it will prove catastrophic. The article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin discusses how the ever-increasing world population will exhaust the world of its natural resources, and eliminate human’s capability of survival. On the other side of the argument is Julian L. Simon who wrote “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment.” This article proposes the theory that with an increase in population, human’s quality of life is amplified. One particular issue that they both mention and have drastically different views on is the future of agriculture and human’s ability to sustain it.
Rolston’s intrinsic value has a larger set, which includes other species, ecosystems, and the biosphere. Rolston’s view are radically the opposite of Singers. This way of thinking is called ecocentrism. Ecocentrism is very complex, decisions are rationed for the best interest for the environment. Moreover, ecological concerns are central with this approach, holesticly it sees little importance in individuals; ecocentrists are concerned only with how individuals influence ecosystems as a whole.
In “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston asserts his belief that in some cases the issues of feeding people and saving nature are in direct conflict with each other, and a win-win outcome may not be possible. In these cases we must decide whether we ought to feed people by using the land and natural resources, or instead opt to save nature, allowing the poor to suffer. This argument is often framed in a manner such as “You wouldn’t let the Ethiopians starve to save some butterfly, would you?” (Pg. 504), Rolston criticizes this for being too simple of an analogy that does not fairly represent his argument. He emphasizes societies reliance on a healthy environment as it is essential to agriculture, and that the availability of clean water is essential, and tries to justify when and why the interests of nature should be paramount to those of feeding people, when a win-win outcome is not possible.
The degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity is increasing at an alarming rate every year. Humans are certainly not the only reason for this, but they are the main contributors. The well-being of ecosystems affects our everyday lives - consumption and consumerism depend on natural resources. Everything humans use is derived from them, in seemingly indirect and direct ways. Yet despite the fact that humans are destroying the environment, many continue to and neglect to take important measures to protect it.
One of the problems facing our world is population. It began about ten thousand years ago when the humans settled and began farming. The farming provides more food for the people thus making the population grow. Now we are about 6 billion in population and in a few years we will be around 10 to 11 billion. Therefore, our population will almost double in size. This means that we will need more food to support us. A study in 1986 by Peter Vitonesk, a Stanford biologist, showed that the humans are already consuming about 38.8 of what is possible for us to eat. Thus, if the population keeps increasing, the percentage will increase also, making us closer and closer to the biophysical limits. By studying the earth's capacity, Dr. Cornell, another biologist, believes that we are already crowded for this would. He believes that our world can only support two million people. Not only this, but population can cause complicated problems to the countries with very high population. These countries will need more schools to educate its people, they will need more hospitals and public health to take care of their people, and they will need more water and more soil for farming to feed all the people. In order to solve the population growth problem, the people should be educated. Once the people are educated they will be aware of the problems they ca...
Environmentalism can head in a negative direction, which may result in population control and even anti-immigrant policies. Can the developing effort of ‘population integrity’ protect our world while recognizing birth morality? My stance is that we must include all possible solutions to controlling population, such as family planning and governmental involvement. In addition, discover solutions to use renewable resources and impede exhausting nonrenewable resources, as well as ways to tackle overconsumption to support our corrupt environment. Though several people see large, rapidly growing populations in developing regions as the primary culprit in environmental decline, we need to focus on the costly environmental outcomes of overconsumption among the gradually increasing populations of the developed nations.
Humans have become a threat to our own way of life by consuming more resources than needed, blind to the consequences that we may face in the future. As of 2016 the world population is at 7.4 billion and it is estimated to be at 11.2 billion by the year 2100. However 10 billion is the maximum population that can be sustained in terms of food security, only one of the many factors to global sustainability. Due to the fact that human consumption exceeds the amount of resources available, the United Nations “recognizes that eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge” in A/RES/70/1. Sustainable development is not only required to fulfill the necessities of the present but to guarantee the capability for future generations to satisfy theirs.
One of the most complex issues in the world today concerns human population. The number of people living off the earth’s resources and stressing its ecosystem has doubled in just forty years. In 1960 there were 3 billion of us; today there are 6 billion. We have no idea what maximum number of people the earth will support. Therefore, the very first question that comes into people’s mind is that are there enough food for all of us in the future? There is no answer for that. Food shortage has become a serious problem among many countries around the world. There are many different reasons why people are starving all over the world. The lack of economic justice and water shortages are just merely two examples out of them all.