Why Does the Environment Matter?
Posted in Econ, Environment, Politics by George
The reason I care about protecting the environment is not because I love trees, or have a penchant for big furry animals. The reason I care so much is because I believe protecting the environment is what’s best for human beings.
It seems like the anti-environmental crowd often tends to label those who want to protect the environment as overly extreme. Most environmentalists aren’t tree-huggers, SUV vandalizers, or animal rights activists. The reason I, and many other environmentalists, advocate things like responsible fishery management is not because I think fish are cute or have equal rights as humans; it’s because I like to eat fish and don’t want to see their population destroyed.
There are certainly environmentalists out there who are extreme. Some environmentalists do push for broad animal rights. Some believe we should protect the Earth for the Earth’s sake, rather than humans. But I am certain this is a miniscule minority view.
Protecting the environment makes sense. We rely on the Earth for our food, fuel, air, water, and more. If we ignore the fact that there are limits to our consumption and activities, it will hurt us in the end.
Environmentalism does not have to be about tree hugging, hippies, or hybrid cars. Environmentalism, for most people, is about maximizing the environment’s benefit for human beings. So the next time a famous political figure ask you whether you’d like to have a healthy economy or a clean environment, remind that politician that in the long run, they go hand in hand.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I have to disagree on a point in this one. I definitely agree that a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand-in-hand in the long run, but I would say that there is a significantly large group of environmentalists who want to conserve and preserve areas of land a various species of plants and animals for Earth’s sake, not for the benefits to humans. I’m sure Prof. Fowler introduced the terms “shallow ecology” and “deep ecology” to your class. Deep ecology is the belief that nature has inherent worth on its own outside of human interest, and shallow ecology is the belief that nature only has value as it benefits humans.
I think that the line between these two concepts is pretty fuzzy. If factory farmers cram animals into tiny cages with 10 others so that they can’t stand up and many are suffocated or trampled, but it is slighly more efficient economically, is that right? I’d say ‘no.’ We would have to be arrogant jerks to think that humans understand everything there is to understand about ecosystems and how all the species and resources interact to form a sustainable system. This is part of the reason why, in my mind, nature has some inherint worth; we don’t understand enough about nature to totally control it. If we get rid of some species that we think has no impact on humans whatsoever and then it turns out that they’re crucial to the ecosystem, what happens then?
Sounds like an interesting topic to discuss…
August 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
PLEASE LET STEPHEN KNOW THAT THERE IS A WAY NOW TO ACHIEVE HIS GOALS RELATIVE TO THE ELIMINATION OF AIR POLLUTION AND A GREEN EARTH INITIATIVE.
BRUCE
908 868 9625 CELL
August 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“I would say that there is a significantly large group of environmentalists who want to conserve and preserve areas of land a various species of plants and animals for Earth’s sake, not for the benefits to humans.”
I guess I just don’t get it. I agree with you, Steve, in that nature (the environment, animals, etc.) does have inherent worth. But besides mankind, who/what else is nature or Earth valuable to? Itself? I agree whole-heartedly that protecting the environment is important, but only because it is vital to ensuring the continuance of mankind into perpetuity. Put another way, if all of mankind suddenly ceased to be, would nature still have value? To whom? Would it really matter?
Anyway, I completely agree with your point about the line between deep ecology and shallow ecology being blurry. Especially with groups like Ducks Unlimited and the like. Sure, Ducks Unlimited is responsible for the conservation of hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands across North America, as well as ensuring the habitats of various waterfowl remain preserved. But what’s the real motivation? Is it purely out of concern for wetlands and waterfowl? Or is the motivation more likely the assurance that members of Ducks Unlimited will have plenty of future hunting trips (Ducks Unlimited members are avid hunters/fishermen)? Most likely its a combination of the two, a means to an end. This is where the line gets blurry.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I’m not solely referring to the strict definition of the money economy as the route in which nature benefits humans. Preserving nature benefits humans in many ways independent of money.
For instance, many humans feel a lot better knowing that animals aren’t crammed into cages to save money on a factory farm. In addition, there is less concern about food health issues when animals aren’t crammed into cages. In this case, it can be better for humans to let animals out of the cramped conditions both in terms of human conscience and health.
I’ll comment more later… I have to leave to get on a cramped metro train where I’ll probably suffocate… woohoo…
In short to some degree I agree with JJ’s comment. I feel that the root reason to preserve nature is for human benefit. If destroying nature were absolutely 100% going to improve conditions for humans (including bad feelings about destroying nature.. all measures of human well-being), then I say go for it.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
One final observation. The reason that last sentence seems absurd is because destroying all of nature isn’t going to improve conditions for humans. If we lost all of the biological diversity that is nature, it would suck, both in terms of money and in terms of general utility for all people.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I see what you’re saying. Nature definitely does benefit humans in more ways than financially. A great example is the national park system of the U.S, which sets aside huge expanses of land (preventing development on them) so that people can hike around them and be inspired by the beauty of it. But I think my point still has validity. If cramming animals into cages did not increase the chance for food-borne illness or create any additional health risks people would still think it wrong to treat them this way, even if by treating the animals this way we could buy chicken for cheaper. You can say that this is still a human-centered reason, since people feel better knowing that these animals are not being tortured, but that brings about the question of why people feel better knowing this. In my opinion it’s because these animals have the capacity to suffer and we care because they have some inherent worth. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a vegetarian and I don’t think that killing animals for food is wrong, but treating them correctly before slaughter is important to me.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:44 am
That’s what I mean. It makes many people (myself included) feel awful to abuse animals. In this light, although helping the animals could be construed as being altruistic and doing it for nature’s sake, I feel the most convincing reason it’s done is because it makes humans feel better. If we didn’t believe the animals had inherent worth, we wouldn’t feel bad about abusing them.
This brings us to the blurry topic of whether altruism is real or whether people act altruistically because it makes them feel good.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:32 am
From a biologist’s perspective this is a huge topic. I think this is one huge thing that sets humans apart from other animals; our ability to act altruistically. I’m talking about true altruism, which is when a person does something for someone else and they do not receive any reciprocal favor in return. I don’t think any other animals are capable of doing this, since they have evolved through natural selection in which behavior that causes their alleles to be passed on to the next generation is rewarded with higher reproductive fitness. There are plenty of examples of group behavior in other animals where it appears they are being self sacrificing to help memebers of the group, but if you examine it closely enough you can always find a way that that behavior helps them pass on their alleles and increase their reproductive fitness.
Humans, on the other hand, are different. There are plenty of examples where humans have made deep sacrifices with no thought of themselves and no return benefit. We feel the urge of a moral law even when it does not benefit us, in fact even when it hurts us. I won’t believe that everything people do is motivated by selfishness, because I can see in myself that is not the case. How would one explain the Christian ideas of loving one’s enemy and living a life of service without seeking praise or reward for it. And I’m not saying that I’m very good at living a life of service without seeking some kind of praise, but I do know that living this kind of life does not make a person feel good much of the time. Actually it can really suck sometimes. Plenty of people in history have stood up for what they think it right only to be persecuted, rejected and killed. That doesn’t make a person feel very good.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Just for clarity: I do believe that humans evolved along with all the other animals/plants/fungi/bacteria/protists etc. but that we have simply evolved a brain developed enough to recognize our existence and recognize purpose and truth in that existence.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I feel like we may be in a chicken-and-egg type argument here. Certainly, a life of service might not make one feel good in the sense that one feels good if they eat an ice cream cone or meet a new friend. However, one could argue that making sacrifices for others is a choice that someone living a life of services makes over any other choice. Thus, this is what they want to do, and wouldn’t that make them feel good? For example, giving up one’s rain coat for someone else in the rain would suck in some sense - the donator would become wet. However, to those who actually give up the rain coat, they are doing so because they prefer that action over keeping the rain coat for themself. Thus, the donator feels better about giving up the raincoat than keeping it.
I have the belief that altruistic acts, in the end, are motivated by some sort of self-interest. I don’t think that makes it any less noble. I just feel that if someone lives a life of service for others, they’re doing so because that’s a life that they have chosen to lead over all other choices. They’re following the preference they have chosen, and that is a form of self-interst.
I don’t think that self-interest is bad. Nor do I think “altrustic acts” are anything but noble. It just makes sense to me that if someone acts in service to others, they’re doing so because they want to act that way. Something has to motivate someone to act…
August 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
[...] of the interesting comments on my last article (Why Does the Environment Matter?), I have decided to elaborate on my thoughts on whether true altruistic acts exist. The first [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
animal ethics aims at preserving species for the good of human being not for animals’ own sake.Advocating of animals preservation should be because if they are not prevserved human being will lack their benefitsespecially for the endangered species.