Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relation between humans and our environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relation between humans and our environment
Edward O. Wilson, an American biologist, discusses in his book, The Future of Life, the current state if the Earth and a carefully devised plan to save the Earth while there is still a chance. Through the book he recalls certain events that he witnessed and learned about and how it shows the destruction of the natural world. Specifically, in chapter six of The Future of Life, titled, “For the Love of Life,” Wilson discusses biophilia, which is described as “the innate tendency to focus upon life and lifelike forms and in some instances, to affiliate with them emotionally” (Wilson, pp. 158), human habitat selection through ancestral instinct, and the “Savanna Hypothesis.” The argument that Wilson makes is that human beings will always have, instinctually, the love for …show more content…
Wilson articulates a well standing argument that was able to convince me, the reader, into believing that the decisions I make are based on my ancestral instincts when it comes to my environment, especially through my discipline of psychology, because of his well-formed explanation of biophilia and the savanna hypothesis, in relation to life and nature. As a reader, who comes from the discipline of psychology through social science, I understand that everything I read will not directly correlate my education when taken at face value. Wilson, however, does a miraculous job of entertaining the field of psychology through the idea of instinct and choice, through the love of life and nature. He is clear in his reasoning of explaining his argument of biophilia being instinctual by stating that “[I]t is not so difficult to love nonhuman life, if gifted with knowledge about it. The capacity, even the proneness to do so, may well be one of the human instincts” (Wilson, pp. 158). As the reader, I understand this clearly and that it means that these
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
The inspiring documentary film, E.O. Wilson—Of Ants and Men, showcases biologist Edward Osborne Wilson’s passion for preserving the biodiversity of our natural world. E.O. Wilson not only values the fascinating creatures (particularly ants) that he comes across during his research and in his daily life, but he also takes action and participates in the Gorongosa Restoration Project at Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, Africa. The destruction of Gorongosa demonstrates the call for us—Homo sapiens—to realize how critical it is to concern ourselves with protecting the very ecosystems that have molded us into the complex species that we are; according to E.O. Wilson, “We adapted over millions of years to wild environments…We really need them” (CITE?). The better effort we make to understand that we are a part of this large, interdependent ecological community, the better equipped we become in not only being
In Thomas Palmer's essay, "The Case For Human Beings", Palmer explores the topics of human accomplishment, the diversity of humankind, and the havoc that said diversity has caused on the environment. Using irony and sarcasm, with the occasional clever analogy, he burdens the reader with his cynical outlook on humankind in regards to its brutish treatment of the earth's delicate ecosystem. In one paragraph, Palmer states, "The only way to...restore biodiversity to its greatest possible richness, would be to arrange for every human being on earth to drop dead tomorrow" (323-24). Palmer's combative literary form, however, is not entirely lacking its own beauty and grace. When he uses human acheivements such as a Bach chorale, man's first journey to the moon, and three-masted schooners, he is bringing glory back to humankind. Although he explains the splendor of the Bach chorale, he still states, "Human consciousness...cannot, in this view, contribute to biodiversity, except by staying as far out of the picture as possible, so as to avoid tainting still-intact landscapes with unnatural influences" (324). No Bach chorale, no three-masted schooner, no Apollo landing, Palmer reveals, contributes to the ecosystem.
Author, researcher, and the world’s foremost expert on ants, Edward O. Wilson satirically compares two opposing groups in his book “The future of Life”. In his book he notes the similar critical and hypocritical natures the two share when using their stereotypes to classify the other. Wilson takes the extremes of these two environmentalist groups and essentially uses writing to make them face each other, displaying their hypocrisy using similar syntax styles and diction, showing us how the two groups, while advocating for two different things, share a similar language that ironically puts them ever so closer to each other. Wilson goes about comparing these two groups by having the two sides opposing each other in order to show the flaws in their logic and ideals by having them sit out in the open, so to speak.
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
Not everything lies in nature; nurture also plays a big role in our behavior. Craig Venter, an American biologist quoted in Ridley’s article, says that “the wonderful diversity of ...
The purpose of this academic piece is to critically discuss The Darwinist implication of the evolutionary psychological conception of human nature. Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” will be the main factor discussed as the theory of evolution was developed by him. Evolutionary psychology is the approach on human nature on the basis that human behavior is derived from biological factors and there are psychologists who claim that human behavior is not something one is born with but rather it is learned. According to Downes, S. M. (2010 fall edition) “Evolutionary psychology is one of the many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior”. This goes further to implicate that evolutionary psychology is virtually based on the claims of the human being a machine that can be programmed to do certain things and because it can be programmed it has systems in the body that allow such to happen for instance the nervous system which is the connection of the spinal cord and the brain and assists in voluntary and involuntary motor movements.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
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.
Both “The Clan of One-Breasted Women” and “An Entrance to the Woods,” gives a viewpoint on the human relationship with nature. Terry Tempest Williams critizes man for being ruthless when it comes to nature and other humans. Wendell Berry believes similarly the same thing. He believes that man needs nature just as much as they need civilization. However, regardless of the differences, both writers offer an insightful perspective on the forever changing relationship between man and nature. And this relationship is, and always will be, changing.
After a thorough close reading of this novel “Creation” I have asked myself a lot of question. First of all when I took a look at the quote book “Is there an “earthborn, yet transcendental obligation we are both morally bound to share” we all have a role to play in the conservation
...criterion that true science is progressive. It has proven able to successfully account for apparent anomalies and generate novel predictions and explanations and therefore has the hallmarks of a currently progressive research program capable of providing us with new knowledge of how the mind works (Ketellar and Ellis 2000). A glance at the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), edited by David Buss, shows just how vigorous and productive the field is. Important challenges remain in the discipline, however. The most important are determining the role of domain-specific versus domain-general processes and integrating evolutionary psychology with other behavioral sciences like genetics, neuroscience, and psychometrics (Buss 2004; Rice 2011). Even though critics will remain, Evolutionary Psychology will remain as a scientific discipline for the foreseeable future.
On the very first page of his book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), he argues that ethical philosophers severely lack credibility and must take the evolved nature of human minds into account: [Our understanding of good and evil] was evolved by natural selection. That simple biological statement must be pursued to explain ethics and ethical philosophers… at all depths” (Wilson 1975, p. 3). One of Wilson’s goals is to prove that scientific materialism is superior to religion and that it can provide a better code of ethics. In On Human Nature (1978), he explains that he wants to provide a solution to what he perceives as religion’s pervasive and erroneous domination of social life (Wilson 1978, p. 142). He asserts that the moral code found in the Bible is arbitrary and causes needless guilt and suffering among the human populace. Wilson desires to analyze religion from a sociobiological perspective, believing that an explanation of religion in terms of evolutionary biology would give scientific materialism a final victory over religion: “If religion… can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain’s evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever” (Wilson 1978, p. 201). Wilson is not only interested in examining human nature and human values, but also he’s also interested in prescribing values for mankind. In Sociobiology he suggests that “a genetically accurate and hence completely fair code of ethics must wait for further contributions of evolutionary sociobiology” (Wilson 1975, p. 144). In On Human Nature, he argues that “the principal task of human biology is to identify and to measure the constraints that influence the decisions of ethical philosophers and everyone else, and to infer their significance through neurophysiological and phylogenetic reconstructions of the mind… in
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.