The Big Lie : Human Restoration Of Nature Essay

“The Land Ethic” is an essay written by Aldo Leopald in order to convince readers of a new view centered around the biotic community and the rejection of anthropocentrism. It continually supports non-human life along with human life as long as it is beneficial to the biotic community.

In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments”, Thomas Hill explores the idea that those who would destroy natural environments may lack necessary human virtues. He lays out this idea through these claims:

In “The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene” environmental politician Paul Wapner depicts the human impacts on nature, and their significant intervention in ecosystem dynamics. His research outlines the “end of nature” (Wapner, 37) and aims to put emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene, suggesting that we are finally realizing that nature is not merely a material object. With this in mind, Wapner argues that the ways in which we protect nature should be significantly different, this, justifying his study. In order to form an argument, Wapner begins by summarizing a general piece of academic research, and through this is then able to provide an organized overview of the logic of his argument. The alternation

In “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”, William F Baxter argues the idea that we should take care of the environment only when doing so is in the best interest of mankind. Baxter argues this from an anthropocentric prosperity perspective. Baxter supports his claim by beginning his essay with four reasons for his anthropocentric preference, but his reasons only serve to influence solutions to issues that pertain to human organization. The goals work to benefit humans and completely leave out the ideas that animals have a right to live or that other parts of nature should remain undisturbed. William F Baxter tell us, “I reject the idea that there is a ‘right’ or ‘morally correct’ state of nature to which we should return” and that “The word ‘nature” has no normative connation” (Baxter, 1974, 383).

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the

Environmental history explores a variety of topics in order to connect nature to humans. In doing so, a new history emerges. As this history unveils itself, it becomes evident that throughout time, humans have taken it upon themselves to improve the nonhuman world for their own gains. Numerous scholars have contemplated this idea, and while they do not all agree on the meaning or the means of improvement upon the land, it remains a constant theme. By exploring the theme of improvement to land, a clear path forms. The idea of improvement in environmental history creates artificial agency for humans, as well as revealing that improvement cannot happen without having an adverse effect on humans.

For almost as long as humans have been on Earth, we have changed landscapes drastically to suit our needs, historically often without regard to the damage caused in the process. This has changed over time, with the passing of legislation like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, the creation of national and state parks, and efforts being made to restore degraded ecosystems. While we may never see perfect natural systems again, especially in areas heavily populated by humans, reconciliation is possible. Reconciliation ecology takes the concepts of restoration ecology, in which managers seek to restore an ecosystem to how it used to be at a particular time, and combines them with inevitable human presence. It uses these factors

Even though we separated ourselves from nature in the attempt to salvage some beauty in the world we still “began to alter places where we were not,” through by-products of our industrialized society. (Mckibben XX) Mckibben says “it is also true that we are apart of nature” (Mckibben XXI) while Cronon wants us to see that “wilderness is more a state of mind than a fact of nature.” (Cronon 493) While Cronon wants humans to separate themselves from the wild, Mckibben asks us to confront nature head on. We are apart of it and“we possess the possibility of self-restraint” so we still have the means to stop abusing the natural order. In order to do this “we would need to change the ways we move ourselves around, the spaces we live in, the jobs we perform.” (Mckibben XXII) We can start by thinking of practical ways to affect the environment positively, starting in the

Val Plumwood in her essay “Paths Beyond Human-Centeredness,” illustrates the impact that humans have on nature and non-animals when it comes to preserving environments. Understanding that nature has it’s living properties that let it thrive among its resources allows for people to grasp the complexities that come about when construction companies destroy the environment in which they work. Plumwood uses the term dualism to refer to the sharp distinction between two classes of individuals. There is the high class, which is considered as the “One.” In contrast, the other side of the division consists of individuals that are classified as lower and are subordinates to the “One” as “Others.” This account on dualism allows the reader to understand how humans can significantly alter the environment because of the way they perceive its resources and inhabitants. Plumwood defines five characteristics that illustrate the oppressive actions that change the connection between human relations and the relationship between humans and nature.

Elliot rejects the argument of the restoration thesis which is the claim that a recreation of a destroyed entity has equal value to the original entity. This is provided the restoration is attainable and economically feasible. His argument is the value of the natural can never fully be restored despite advances of technology utilized by engineers. Elliot defines natural as “unmodified by human activity” (Elliot 80). Elliot acknowledges natural does not equate value nor is it inherently better than non-natural. Elliot uses the examples of disease and environmental disasters to show that natural occurrences may not be good. There are cases where human involvement enhances nature but it is when the human disruption intends to replace a constitutionally good natural aspect that reduction in the value occurs. The depreciation of this value stems from the necessity of its genesis. It is an object 's history, its origins, its story, and its “continuity of the past” that instills the worth of nature (Elliot 83). The successor of the natural does not hold the same stature (as seen in

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)

White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical