Analysis: "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments"

Americans, as a whole, do not care about the environment anymore. When we watch the news or simply talk about our day, there are always more pressing topics that come up. However, as a nation, the threat of a failing environment seems to be forgotten because the effects are not as obvious as other threats. Bill McKibben’s “Waste Not, Want Not” discusses how much time, money, resources, and people America has actually wasted and how little effort has been made to try to change. McKibben causes readers to think it is too late to save the environment from our wastefulness because we put our efforts into systems that do not help the environment, spend more money and resources than necessary, and refuse to acknowledge how much were wasting.

As The World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial, by Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan, is a graphic novel about the state of our environment. They use cartoons and abundant sarcasm to convey the message that the attempts people are making to save the environment are not enough to do any real good. Their message challenges both those of Edward O. Wilson and the University of Connecticut in that Jensen and McMillan’s ideas are much more radical and suggest that the ideas posed by Wilson and UConn, such as the importance of recycling and sustainability efforts, are ineffective at saving the environment. We must resolve the challenges posed by Jensen and McMillan so that all of the ideas put forth in the sources may work together rather than against each other. In order to do this we must accept that some of the ideas given by Jensen and McMillan may be too extreme to do any real good and that the ideas suggested by Wilson and UConn, though slightly ineffective, are nonetheless important steps in saving the environment. Taken alone, none of their ideas will save the environment; instead it is necessary to combine the ideas of Wilson, UConn, and Jensen and McMillan in order to create a more realistic plan to save the planet.

Hill would make a distinction here from just perspective to one of attitude, if one sees themselves as part of nature and yet would still destroy it then they are making the value judgment that humans are more important than nature.

As a nation, we have to look at what the future would be for our children, their children and the generations ahead. We can start with participating in recycle programs, investing in clean energy and ways to reduce destruction of our forests." Without Americans constant need to consume, the environment would have plenty of time to replenish the resources it provide us." "NIEHS Environmental Coloring Book." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, an official government website for Kids. 02 Apr. 2009 .

Regarding one’s character traits whilst discussing ethics of nature can cause the arousal of many questions. Hill argues that people who essentially do not care for nature do not have certain traits compared to the traits of those who do care for nature. I find myself on the fence of this topic as I can see each side to this issue, however, I find myself mostly agreeing with Hill’s argument.

I hypothesise that adhering to religious beliefs, and religious teachings; that we can make better choices for the environment and protect the Earth. It is also our moral obligation to

“Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future.”

We are less receptive to information when it is yelled at us, so it is counterintuitive for me to fill four pages with argumentative blathering. Candidly, I am bored of writing essays. I'm tired of drumming my fingers over computer keys as I search desperately for a string of words that can prolong my prose, and exhausted of the rewrites and rewrite rewrites that accompany classroom assignments. I think my words (and, relevantly, the leaves of paper on which I print them) would be better spent crafting a sort of how-to guide on altering your lifestyle to improve the natural world. It is nice to envision ourselves as "savers of the environment", because everyone likes to feel like a superhero--and I'd like to bridge the gap between preacher and

The environment has always been a necessity for humanity since we first appeared thousands of years ago. Without the emotional support and physical resources nature has provided us, our ancestors would have never lived long enough to reproduce. Despite the importance of nature, humanity has been creating devastating effects on our planet, destroying the most beautiful and valuable object that only exist in our Solar System. Our self-centered decisions has had colossal impact on the Earth. We have polluted the oceans with our waste, removed forests that belonged to nature for man-made structures, and released toxins which depletes the amount of ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere. However, even with the desire of people wanting to save the environment, many questions have been raised to debate on how humanity can protect nature. In order to reach that stage, environmentalist had to consider one question. What does it mean to care about the environment? According to most of dictionaries, environmental care is to protect and improve the conditions of the world’s water, air, land, and organisms. Using this definition, environmentalist developed the concept of “going green,” ideas and methods that would recreate nature through the use of making responsible decisions and healthy lifestyles. Regardless of whether people agree with the concept, does “going green” meet the definition of caring for the environment? From how the public sees it, including myself, they would agree that

In his book, Whole Earth Discipline, Steward Brand proclaims that he is “an ecologist by training, a futurist by profession, and a lazy engineer at heart - an ecopragmatist.” These three adjectives not only describe the author perfectly, but together they succinctly describe the premise of his entire book. Once a fervent traditional environmentalist, over time, Brand has shifted his views on core Green issues, such as nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and urbanization. This shift in thinking has occurred through scientific evidence, challenging the entire Green movement to think differently for the sake of the planet; pragmatism over ideology, and futuristic over traditional “Green romanticism.”

We should promote the conservation of our ecologies by reducing the amount of waste that goes directly into the environment and promoting green thinking and living all across the world. For instance, we could protect our environment by reducing the amount of cattle that feed in a certain area and by prohibiting the introduction of alien-invasive species as they deplete minerals and food in the soil for other plants to consume.

Paul Taylor approaches “respect for nature” as a moral attitude, meaning that if an individual is unable to comprehend the “meaning and conditions of applicability” of the attitude, they are also unable to have the attitude as a part of their “moral outlook” (Taylor 103). “Respect for nature” is defined by two essential concepts, the good of a being, and the concept of inherent worth.

Nearly everything that a human does is in response to the environment. Our lives are defined by what is around us and what we find in front of us, whether this means accepting, dealing with or changing it. This has been the pattern since primates first stood up and became Homo erectus, and has continued until we considered ourselves doubly wise. The shape of the land affected where humans moved. Weather was something with which to contend. Fire affected humans until they conquered it – and herein lies the core of the relationship. The earth affects humans, and humans affect it back, viewing characteristics and patterns as problems and challenges, and finding a solution.

Cultivating the virtue of humility as we deal with our ecological crisis helps us appreciate that any ecological ethic which takes into account both God and humanity and does not reduce both to some extension of undifferentiated nature must begin with a rejection of the unbridled sovereignty of humanity over the earth. In this rejection is the recognition that all work upon the earth must be informed by a clear understanding of and respect for the earth as an autonomous and valuable entity and the laws of nature on which the bounty of the earth depends.

"Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill" (Hawking). The planet 's slow deterioration could be halted if those inhabiting it were to use the resources that have been gifted upon them. Many claim to show concern in aiding the environment, yet, most do not seem to exert the effort needed to help an ever-changing ecosystem from decaying by partaking in tasks such as recycling. Finding the underlying psychological mentality behind these actions, as explored though the psychological branch of eco-psychology, could help create methods to combat said destructive mindsets that have evolved largely up until the present.