This earth has so many wonderful things to offer, including what is still unknown. The responsibility to keep this earth safe lands in the hands of mankind. Humanity may not exist if the responsibility is ignored.. In the chapter “For the Love of Life,” published in the non fiction book The Future of Life (2002), naturalist and Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward O. Wilson discusses the effects the nature, including what is still unknown, has on the prosperity of mankind and argues that humanity has an obligation to preserve nature because of its genetic unity. Wilson supports his claim by justifying the reasons for conserving and preserving nature including how technology can never fully replace it, describing habitat preferences as a component of biophilia - which is explains human’s predisposition to love …show more content…
nature, and referring to scientific proof to justify nature’s affect on humans. His purpose is to stress the influence nature has on the well being of humans, that without it, the human race would not exist. Examination of outside sources both extend and complicate Wilsons claim that humanity has a direct bond with the natural world thus strengthening his argument and promoting new perspectives that demonstrate Wilson begins his argument by explaining the importance of protecting this earth. This earth deserves to be taken care of because of everything it has to offer and it can never be replaced by technology and genetically modified organisms. The intricacy and complexity of nature can never be fully recreated with technology. Although mankind does have the ability to rebuild organisms, it does not excuse letting the natural world slip away. Letting the natural world slip away is like suggesting to “burn the libraries and art galleries, make cordwood of the musical instruments, pulp the musical scores, erase Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Goethe and the Beatles too…” (10) It is true to say that everything can be replaced but it will always be second best. Nothing can replace the original product because a substitute cannot replace the elaborate work that produces the original product. This includes the existence of mankind. Humanity has a direct genetic unity to nature, as it is stated, “All organisms have descended from the same distant ancestral life form,” (11) and without the natural world, humans would not exist. Therefore, because everything is connected genetically connected then if one component of the natural world is removed, everything disappears as well. Biophilia: the instinctive bond between humans and other organism due to a physical and emotional bond, as defined by Wilson. Humanity has the innate tendency to love nonhuman life and to wonder what it yet to be discovered. It can also be seen that humans gravitate towards a specific habitat and have natural instincts to survive. This behaviour can be explained by the savanna hypothesis.
Wilsons states, “The human habitat preference is consistent with the ‘savanna hypothesis,’ that humanity originated in the savanna and transitional forests of Africa,” (14) which Wilson suggests is the origin on biophilic instincts. The savanna hypothesis proposes that the existence of mankind originated in the savanna and forests of Africa and therefore suggests that humans innate tendency to love, and have a connection with, nature stems from there. Biophilia describes the positive effects the natural world has on the mental health of humanity. Wilson states, “If biophilia is truly part of human nature if it is truly an instinct, we should be able to find evidence of a positive effect of the natural world and other organisms on health.” (17) It has been proven through studies how the natural world can have a certain positive effect on mental health. Some cases have shown people become comforted by images of nature after being in a stressful or alarming situations, while others have displayed inmates who were provided with a view of a forest of farmland and resulted with less stress related
symptoms. Connecting back to biophilia and mankind originating from nature, it is clear to understand how nature provides comfort and amenity to humans because it is something familiar and predisposed. In the academic journal essay “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species” (2013), Department of Philosophy at the Northeastern University author Ronald Sandler discusses the use for cloning vulnerable and endangered animals and argues the ethical concerns that may display deep de-extinction as unnatural and not the answer to revive lost species. Sandler supports his claim by describing the negative and positive effects of reviving lost organisms, portraying how cloning will not solve the extinction crisis, and explaining the possible downside with transgenic biotechnology, but not necessarily being opposed to it. His purpose is to identify both the benefits and hindrance of transgenic biotechnology and cloning in order to rebuild lost organisms. Wilson claims that although technophiles do not see the urge to conserve and preserve nature because everything can be rebuilt, each specie is designed to adapt to its surroundings and so rebuilding organisms seems unrealistic. Sandler recognises Wilsons belief by stating, “However deep de-extinction is not itself a significance species conservation strategy because it does not prevent species from going extinct.” (357) Even though cloning animals and organisms is a possibility, it doesn’t solve the root of the problem, that there are species going extinct. Sandler continues to explain how deep de-extinction does not guarantee that the revived organism will evolve or adapt correctly to it’s new surroundings. This seems to extend Wilsons claim, that cloning and rebuilding is a possibility but it does not guarantee species to be fully revived, and it does not give an excuse to not preserve the natural world that currently is in existence. More so, Sandler claims that everyone has a right to know if their food has been genetically modified so that they have a chance to modify their diet accordingly by stating, “The views of those who find transgenic biotechnology objectionable should be respected.” (Sandler 358) However, Sandler makes a counterclaim arguing that because deep de-extinction involves creating organisms from genetic material it might give off a sense of unnaturalness but because genetic hybridization is common, there is nothing ethically wrong with it. Sandler continues this belief by explaining, “However, something (including living things) could not have come to exist without human intervention.” (Sandler 357) Looking at the big picture, whether or not genetic modification and hybridization is ethically right or wrong, the human world would not have the same resources that have been produced without it. This seems to be complicating Wilsons views by confirming that without transgenic biotechnology, the same things that are valued today would not exist such as “vaccines and low-fat yogurt” (Sandler 357) which are two examples that involved human intervention to exist but are very common in day to day life. In the chapter “Combating the Hostile Forces of Nature,” published in the book “Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (2015), professor of psychology at the University of Texas and authors David M. Buss discusses habitat preferences as proved by the savanna hypothesis and argues that humans have a subconscious want for a more natural environment. Buss supports his claim by explaining what the savanna hypothesis is, providing scientific studies proving how humans pull towards specific habitats, and listing the three stages of habitat selection. His purpose is to express the effect habitat selection has on the psychological mental health of mankind. Wilson claims humanity has an unconscious pull towards a certain habitat, as explained by the savanna hypothesis. Buss further acknowledges this belief, stating, “…humans have evolved preferences that are consistent across cultures and that different landscapes can have an effect on our psychology and physiology.” (Buss 84) Humans may prefer certain natural environments because of its origin, “that humanity originated in the savanna and traditional forests of Africa.” (14), but furthermore, being in one environment or the other has the ability to effect humans mentally because of the way one individual adapts to a certain habitat and makes use of its resources. This seems to clarify Wilsons claim that humans have a “biological species dependent on certain natural environment…” (15), humans pull towards one specific type of habitat. Buss claims that there are three stages of habitat selection that elaborates on the savanna hypothesis. These stages include, selection: when a certain habitat is first encountered, the decision is made to stay and explore or leave, either a positive decision or a negative one; information gathering: if the decision of selection is positive then exploration begins for resources and possible dangers; and last, exploitation: a last decision must be made to decide whether to stay in the habitat to use its resources or not. Buss continues, “Humans create architecture that mimics the comfortable sensation of living under a forest canopy.”(85) If it is true to say that the savanna hypothesis stemmed from the fact that humans originated in the savanna, it would make sense that now mankind adapts to its current environment by relating back to its origins. Buss also included studies finding that having a view of nature while in a hospital causes for a speedier recovery and that flowers are universally loved. This seems to extend Wilsons claim that the savanna hypothesis does not only mean mankind has an unconscious pull towards a certain habitat or landscape, but also chooses a certain habitat by going through three steps, concluding if the environment benefits them. Even more so, nature has the power of affecting the mental and physical health of humanity positively because humans have originated from a natural environment.
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
Man has destroyed nature, and for years now, man has not been living in nature. Instead, only little portions of nature are left in the world
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
Throughout the Romanticism period, human’s connection with nature was explored as writers strove to find the benefits that humans receive through such interactions. Without such relationships, these authors found that certain aspects of life were missing or completely different. For example, certain authors found death a very frightening idea, but through the incorporation of man’s relationship with the natural world, readers find the immense utility that nature can potentially provide. Whether it’d be as solace, in the case of death, or as a place where one can find oneself in their own truest form, nature will nevertheless be a place where they themselves were derived from. Nature is where all humans originated,
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
Environmental activist, David Suzuki, explains how the progression that allowed Homo sapiens to advance into a “super species” may be the primary factor to what ends the wellbeing of our future. In his excerpt from “Rediscovering Our Place in Nature”, Suzuki goes into detail about how the components of life on Earth should not be compromised for the desires of a portion of the people who live there.
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, John Muir, a naturalist, and Marsden Manson, an engineer for the city of San Francisco, engaged in a heated debate over the construction of a dam in Hetchy Hetchy Valley. Muir wanted to preserve nature for the future, so he objected to the dam because he felt it would destroy the beauty of the area. On the other hand, Manson believed building a dam would provide water and electricity to the thousands of people who lived in the city of San Francisco, and this would preserve the well being of the human race for the future. Both men had good points and arguments to support their views; however, in the end you have to look out for your own kind. If there is a choice about the well being of the human race or nature, I believe there is only once choice to be made – the future support of the human race.
In this article, “The Shadow of the Past” Clive Ponting, proclaims the vital importance for our modern global civilization and offers a provocative and illuminating view of human history and its relationship to the environment. Ponting points out that as our species increased in population, it had a direct effect on our environment and our ecosystems could not support our increasing number. He argues that human beings have repeatedly built societies that have grown and prospered by exploiting the Earth’s resources, only to expand to the point where these resources can no longer sustain the society’s population and subsequently collapsed. Ponting is trying to get across a point by saying that if humans continue to markedly use resources or create unnatural resources, the natural ecosystem will not be able to follow these changes and it will soon be destroyed. Agriculture is what caused our population to grow which lead to a greater population. As our population grew, the more land we needed to cultivate on, the more ecosystems we destroyed. Since agriculture is our most important res...
In the last hundred years, over 160 species of flora and fauna equating to millions have gone extinct (“The Sixth Extinction”, 2013). The harmful and selfish acts of man, with absolute disregard for the lives of non-human organisms, have caused colossal and devastating damage to the earth (Bekoff, 2014). All these destructive actions have been themed by Bekoff as “unwilding”. We are living in the Anthropocene, the age of humans. In a world where “unwilding” has unfortunately become a norm. Rewilding is the opportunity for us humans to reverse the destruction we have brought upon the natural world (Monbiot, 2013) if we humans did not “unwild”, rewilding would not be necessary now (Bekoff, 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine and evaluate the issues fuelling the controversy between proponents advocating rewilding, and opposition groups. It studies the movement of rewilding the earth, and the “rewilding” of people’s hearts (Bekoff, 2014), together with their positive impacts. In addition, it looks at the potential obliteration of our
In The Diversity of Life, Edward O. Wilson reflects on how the living world became diverse and how humans are destroying that diversity. In the book’s preface, Wilson defines biodiversity as “the totality of inherited variation in all organisms in a selected area” (Wilson ix). He adds that modern technology will allow for us to find many new species that were previously unknown to be in existence.
The earth is made of every single molecule in the air, every breath an animal takes, every wind that blows, every rain drop that falls, every leaf that falls from a tree. In today's world, many people take advantage of Mother Nature, and give no respect to wilderness and earth. Oil mills are constructed and land is torn apart to make more room for the industrial, modern world. Many humans have forgotten about the beauties of nature, and are not concerned by the fact that Mother Nature is slowly dying. Our societies have begun to grow apart from the earth and the non-human world. In Donelle N. Dreese's essay, The Terrestrial Intelligence, he refers to Linda Hogan's collection of essays and believes that "her book, with all its stories, recreates the life of the natural world that has been objectified, and it redefines non-human creatures that have been negatively stereotyped" (12). Reese analyzes Hogan's essays and comes to a conclusion that Linda Hogan is trying to get the message across that humans, animals, and the earth are all connected one way or another, and that no matter how hard we try to detach ourselves from Mother Nature, we will never escape this relationship. Even though at times it seems as if humans have completely broken off from Mother Nature, there is still a connection there that not many people take notice of. Linda Hogan believes that humans are slowly killing the land, animals and even their own people, and by doing so, humans are trying to detach themselves from their roots, the Earth.
Mollison, 1991, also states that harmony with nature is only possible if humans can discard the notion that we are superior to the natural world. He states, “We are not superior to other life-forms; all living things are an expression of Life. If we could see that truth, we would see that everything we do to other life-forms we also do to ourselves. A culture which understands this does not, without absolute necessity, destroy any living thing.”
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “Today’s global human population is over 7 billion. Every day, the planet sees a net gain of roughly 250,000 people” (3). That’s a substantial number considering that that number is more than twice of the population in the 1900s. As our numbers continue to increase the amount of resources needed for survival are decreased because the resources get used faster than they can be replaced. Joseph R. Simonetta states, “We are depleting our natural resources: our forests, fisheries, range lands, croplands, and plant and animal species. We are destroying the biological diversity on which evolution thrives (this is being called the sixth great wave of extinction in the history of life on earth, different from the others in that it is caused not by external events, but by us)” (Seven words that can change our world, 6).
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.