Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of humans on the environment
Impact of humans on the environment
Negative human impacts on the environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of humans on the environment
In Aldo Leupold's, A Sand County Almanac, he discusses the topic referred to as Land Ethic. According to Leupold, the land ethic can be defined as a moral principle, in which, humans must learn to coexist, not only with their homo sapien community, but with all organisms that reside in their ecosystem. To have a land ethic, humans must consciously coexist with the soil, water, plants, and animals, collectively. A land ethic acknowledges that in some areas the habitat must remain in its natural state, untouched by man. We as humans must change our ways in order to preserve, conserve, and protect the fellow members of our society, or we will continue to demolish and exterminate species. A land ethic that is governed solely by economic self-interest is not practical in conserving the natural state of the land. This form of conservation is not efficient for the protection of particular elements that make up the ecosystem, due to their lack of commercial value. Each layer that makes up the ecosystem relies on those both above it and below it for various services, like …show more content…
food. The functioning of the land is dependent on the cooperation and competition of its diverse community. Therefore, we must not only make conscious changes for commercial values, but also philosophical values. Although the land is capable of recovery, it can only recover to a certain point. The point to which the land can recover decreases in complexity, with each alteration we make. These restrictions and limits we place on our land affect the future of our system. I agree with Leupold, that we as members of a larger society, need to learn to stop modifying the land to ourselves and learn to coexist with the land untouched by man. Previously, I thought that I had been coexisting with the natural land, but in fact, I have done nothing to coexist with the natural landscape. It sounds like a simple task to coexist with nature, but we are constantly modifying the land to meet our personal needs, despite the needs of the habitat for other organismal use. The land is a precious resource that man has interrupted and continued to attempt to conquer. In order to continue with our lives, we need stop trying to overpower and outcompete the land, and learn to coexist with the land. Our continued destruction of the natural rain forests, the introduction of pesticides, and gas emissions are examples of major human interactions that only benefit us and don't take our fellow community members into consideration. Humans want to conquer everything, but if we don't learn to coexist with our community, we will eventually demolish resources, and run more environmentally significant species to extinction. I believe that the people of the United States think they have developed a strong land ethic and do everything necessary to preserve and protect the land.
However, upon closer examination and the understanding of what a land ethic is according to Aldo Leupold, I believe that the citizens of the United States would be shocked to see the reality of their failure to coexist with the land in its natural state. Like myself, many citizens believe that our country is doing everything necessary to preserve nature. Unfortunately, we are failing to preserve the natural landscape, and I believe that even with the further growth of a land ethic, that we will continue to try and outcompete our fellow members in our community for our own personal needs. I believe that we will always have the principles of a land ethic in our mind, but they will continue to be placed on the backburner to our personal goals and
egos. Although further growth of a land ethic is needed, I believe that we will continue to put ourselves in front of our fellow community members. Issues such as the implementation of a land ethic need to be discussed in a way that takes all perspectives and opinions within the community into consideration (even those of the organisms that cannot speak on their behalf). Also, we must take more precautionary measures to identify whether or not our modification being made to the land are necessary. The relationship between man and the land needs to be pushed beyond an economic privilege and become a prioritized obligation. Land use needs to be protected beyond economic self-interest. We need to learn how to apply the land ethic in all cases and to do so, we must view the evolution of a land ethic as not only an intellectual one, but an emotional one. It is essential for man to see nature first-hand to understand the beauty and importance of maintaining its natural state.
Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
I think that he is trying to say that wilderness is something to be cherished and loved, because it gives definition and meaning to his life. His whole life was spent looking after and trying to preserve the wilderness. This is a plea for the preservation. I think that Leopold believes one day a lot of what we have today and he want it to be preserved so that in the future people have the chance to see there cultural inheritance like our ancestors let us see by preserving things.
Onora O’Neill in her text “Environmental values, Anthropocentrism and Speciesism” discusses first different views that give humans an ethic through two utilitarian thinkers (Bentham and Mill), and then in her turn tries to come up with an ethic that protects the animals and the environment by also protecting humans.
Everybody knows that to have a good social life one needs to have good ethics, but what about using those ethics in the natural environment. Many people tend to say that they are well-educated, with a high use of ethics, but it seems useless in the real world. Society needs to start to worry about the environment and not only about what one wants or need. Aldo Leopold describe how ethics in an ecological and philosophical view today needs to changed to have a good use of them. Leopold was one of the founders of the Wilderness society. At the same time, he initiated the first Forest Wilderness Area in the United States. This two are just some of the societies and jobs in which he was involved that have to do with the natural environment. During
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
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.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
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.
The world we live in today is always changing, whether it be technology or the land. As these changes take place, society must adapt to them. Many things begin to change as a result of this and society beings to turn into something completely different. One of the most overlooked changes that takes place is that of the environment and landscape. The landscape is one of the most important parts of our society’s culture and has a great effect on how we live. It seems that nowadays, many individuals are taking advantage of the land and nothing appreciating it for every thing that it is worth. Its true that not everyone is going to look at the environment and landscape in the same way, however that is no excuse to disrespect it. Then again, a whole new argument can start from that, as different individuals are going to have different views on what disrespecting the land. Many positive things have come from taking advantage of the land, and also, there have been many negative things to come as a result of this. It all depends on how you look at it. One thing is for sure though, no matter what the case is, the land and environment we live in plays a huge part in each of our everyday lives.
...enerations do not run out of resources and to keep the natural beauty of the existing nature from being destroyed.
Economic valuation is an important component of environmental policy, although it is difficult to affix a cost on the environment and ecosystem services, it is a measurement that is relevant to most in society humans. Therefore, economic tools may be useful in reinforcing the importance of maintaining biodiversity and preserving fragile ecosystems.