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

“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.”

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.

Companies are using environmentalism as a straw man for overconsumption. Coming straight out of writer Amy Westervelt’s article, “Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?”, Westervelt clearly sees through this ploy of emotional appeal, stating “American consumers

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.

Many people do not live ecofriendly lives or find protecting the environment to be important.

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.