Golden Rule Environmentalism Summary

Golden Rule and Environmentalism

Intelligence, humor, simplicity, common sense, lack of philosophical jargon, perspective, wit, answer to questions. In the style of a popular scientist, not a philosopher, Stephen Jay Gould announces his view of an appropriate environmental ethic following the simple, but forever elegant, golden rule. "If we all treated others as we wish to be treated ourselves, then decency and stability would have to prevail"(216), he states.

In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden

Kreiger discusses three options for managing the Falls which were devised by the International Joint Commission Fallscape committee: 1) converting the falls into a monument, i.e. spending money and resources to keep the falls the way they are now; 2) making the falls an event, i.e. allowing the falls to continue to evolve, monitoring for rockfalls, and 'selling' their occurrence to the public to watch; 3) treating the falls as a show, i.e. giving a director complete power and discretion over the amount of water flowing at a given time, the size of the pool, and the amount of debris, along with lights and music, of course. Where would the golden rule ethic lead us in deciding the appropriate action for Niagara

Should 'the public', as Kreiger thinks, have the say in what happens to Niagara, and therefore, decide its fate? I don't think that the public is in an appropriate position to decide the fate of this, or many other, environmental entities. An analogy to our electoral system comes to mind when thinking about this issue. There are many people who voice the opinion that the theory of true democracy is great, but who are really glad we actually live in and operate under a republican system of government, because they don't want everyone to be able to have an equal say. The reason is that 'the public' is often misinformed and fickle. Similarly, I do not necessarily think that the public should be the entity responsible for deciding how Niagara is treated, but if not them, who? This poses a problem for