Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Joseluis Bedoya - Protecting the Biodiversity of Ecosystems
Protecting the biodiversity, the variety of life on earth, of our planet is an ethical issue that should be at the top of the political agenda. Natural ecosystems are suffering directly from our excessive use of natural resources and our continuing efforts to inhabit places with rich ecosystems. Oceans, having the highest rates of biological productivity and diversity, play an important role in the temperature setting and regulating the earth’s carbon balance. Deforestation and other methods that require the removal of trees contribute to climate change. Extensive, natural forests are especially valuable: they are stable, resilient, very large carbon stores. Both the destruction of those carbon stores and the added emissions from the process make this even worse for global warming. If the earth’s remaining natural ecosystems are essential to regulate the climate and keep the planet habitable, then why do we invade and excrete its resources dry? Nature provides humans with a place to live, whether we find nature of instrumental value or intrinsic value, and we have a moral responsibility to stop the destruction of these ecosystems. Those that fail to see the harm that we are causing the environment do not understand, or more importantly, do not wish to understand nature and how important it is to the earth and to us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What kind of ethical theories are you going to use in support of your paper?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think an utilitarian would have to say on this matter? What happens is we destroy one of the ecosystems like the ocean, but leave the forest ecosystem unharmed? Would it be possible to stop global warming and the increase in carbon dioxide and would it be ethical?
ReplyDeletetesting
ReplyDeleteDo you think that more citizens of the using Aldo Leopold land ethic would result in a less damaged ecosystem? Is there something that should be implemented into a law?
ReplyDeleteHow do you believe we can get people to change their views on harming the environment? Is it even possible? You could talk about The Gaia Hypothesis and the ethical obligation we have to earth in your paper.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you are not going to talk about instrumental vs. intrinsic value, but how might different views which establish these values help people to understand these environmental issues? Might one particular worldview be better than another in teaching people the importance of the environment?
ReplyDeleteSo are you arguing that the planet should have rights? Which of the two definitions of rights would be appropriate for your reasoning?
ReplyDeleteThe classic definition would say that since we have the right to live on the planet in exchange for the planet's freedom to retain its natural state ... then the planet should have rights in exchange for our liberty to do whatever we want to exploit it.
The modern definition would say that it is almost like a game with universally known rules, and in exchange for the ability to live on the planet (playing the game), we must follow the rules (treat the environment right).
Which one would you suggest, or would you suggest a new definition entirely for the rights that the planet deserves?
If a person were to believe that nature purely has instrumental value then what incentives are there to preserve it? If nature were only there to serve the purpose of human needs then we should exploit nature as much as possible. How, if you hold an instrumental belief of nature, do you explain leaving nature completely untouched?
ReplyDeleteComing from a similiar ecocentric standpoint about how the Earth's environmental interactions between and within each of its smaller ecosystems, I can see your frustration at how people with utilitarian or ethically egoist values fail to see the overarching rule of nature over the lives of humans, every to this day. To out it bluntly, if the human race does not want to fry itself out of exsistence, how can we with good conscience still drive gas-guzzling vechiles instead of bicycles or public transportation? What will make your paper persuavive and encourage people to adopt a similiar viewpoint will be stating how each of the major ethical standpoints (utilitariansim, ethical and pyschological egoism, cultural relativism etc.)would think of the issue of biodiversity and the primary argument points that each of the opinions have. Then after you have stated them, refute them with your own viewpoint, but make sure to allow for some exceptions your view might not be able to answer. So, not only will it be a strong argument, but also a one with concessions, rendering it credible and realistic as well.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the planet should have rights OVER the people, or that they should be equal? Does that kind of a difference have a severe impact on the level of ecosystem degradation?
ReplyDeleteWe are facing a serious ecosystem crisis. What should the government do to solve the problem from essence?
ReplyDeletewe are facing the ecosystem crisis. what should the government do to solve the problems?
ReplyDeleteYou state that some people do not wish to understand nature and how important the earth is to us. How can these type of attitudes be changed? Do you think that there is one or more ethical or moral theory that could be used to help people better understand and put things in perspective?
ReplyDelete