When talking about philosophy or politics I believe it one should be straight up with their audience. I was told by a mentor a long time ago (yesterday) that when it comes to discussing and debating such topics only around thirty percent of the people you will face are willing to be convinced while the others are merely there to oppose you rather than truly have a conversation about the topic. I’m confident I have been in conversations where I was nothing more than an antagonizer to a viewpoint and others where I was open to hearing the other side. I would like to clarify my own socio-political-philosophical alignment to help paint a picture of what you will be getting into reading this blog post. I describe myself as a machiavellian moral cosmopolitan, this essentially means that I believe the ends justify the means if it is too the overall benefit of those affected.
So what does this mean? What kind of policies and suggestions would I suggest? Essentially, I am for hardlined policies that wouldn’t be popular with mass opinion. New York state just passed a ban on all plastic bags and has applied a tax on plastic bag use while they’re being phased out. Judging from the social media reaction (A totally reliable source for taking your own surveys) it is a controversial enactment. However, I am all for it, I do not care if someone complains that they won’t be able to put a plastic trash bag into their bin. Plastic bags are photodegradable and are the leading cause of microplastics entering ecosystems. I view mitigating the further spread of microplastics as much more beneficial end then helping Marsha’s Sunday night garbage collecting a little quicker.
Another point I want to make is that I am an environmental science major. I work directly in the stem field and have for most of my highschool and collegiate life been mentored by people from the stem field. For the most part, people in this field have little taste for the discussions around policy making and environmental ethics. I was having a discussion the other day with a good majority of the environmental science program, and the consensus around the room was that the environmental studies program was largely full of “philosophical dipshits who think they know science”. I think this highlights a key issue with the scientific community when it comes to the world views and ethics involved in not just environmental science but science as a whole. The community is cocky and it likes to represent itself with scientific jargon that is hard for people without scientific backgrounds to understand. I believe there needs to be a proper balance between science and rhetoric. On their own they do not get nearly as much done as they could together.
And I grow tired of it, all the political and scientific jargon about all “the assumptions and beliefs…about how the natural world works and how [we should] interact with the environment” (1) that we see in news or articles or on tv. However, it is still important to know and understand this worldviews. Probably the most prominent environmental worldview throughout history that people held was the Human-Centered view. This view considers humans to be the most important species on the planet and should thus “manage the earth mostly for our own benefit” (2). I take a large issue with this worldview, primarily because many of the people who hold this worldview are not educated enough to make the proper environmental decisions that are really for their benefit. Many people who would support this Human-Centered view wouldn’t view our phosphorus consumption as problematic and most likely have no idea how finite of a resource phosphorus really is. Another Human-Centered worldview is the stewardship model, this worldview argues that humanity has an ethical responsibility to manage earth’s resources. Many of the opposing viewpoints to human-centered worldviews believe that all life on earth holds intrinsic value. A species focused version of these kinds of worldviews is the life-centered view, they believe it is humanity’s responsibility to prevent further harm to the other species on earth from our actions . The view I probably would align myself with is the earth-centered worldview, this goes beyond the species protection that the life centered worldview suggests and states that we must protect the “biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the functioning of its life-support systems” as well (3). However, I would like to distinguish my own reasons and opinions on these worldviews. I strongly disagree with the human-centered worldviews, because the people who hold them lack the knowledge to properly judge what is in the best interest for humans. I agree with the life-centered worldviews because I believe those are the world views in which my objective align. I don’t value other forms of life on earth as remotely equivalent to human life, beyond personal bondings, and I have no issue with trying to be in control of nature as best as we can. My beliefs align with those of the life-centered worldviews primarily because I believe it is in Humanities’ best interest to preserve nature and to use the resources it provides sustainably.
There are other worldviews focused on environmental ethics and justice as well but I believe it is more pivotal to focus on one of the underlying issues with environmental philosophy. I’ve mentioned it a few times in this blog already, education. Not just any education, environmental education. The biggest flaw within environmental philosophy and politics is a severe lack of understanding the nature of well, nature and not seeing the real issue. People who support human-centered view are unaware of the essential life-sustaining systems that exist within nature, how those systems provide us resources and keep us alive, and how our unsustainable use of these systems could spell economic or global collapse. While on the other hand, a lot of the people who support more life and nature centered worldviews suffer from a lack of understanding the real issues, being overly concerned with Carbon dioxide instead of other greenhouse gases and the human treatment of animals instead of the extinction threats towards wild animals. The textbook suggests three main concepts to help boost environmental literacy. Miller first suggests that environmental education must teach that natural capital is not only a valuable resource that we must use sustainably but that it also must be maintained to support life on earth. I agree with this concept, however, I feel as if certain topics must be stressed such as our phosphorus and arable land use. He also stresses the importance that environmental education explains that our “ecological footprints are immense and expanding rapidly” (4). I do not believe this is as pivotal as really explaining to people the effects of actions, everyone knows we have an expanding influence on the earth good and bad. It’s all over the news and politics, you would have to live under a rock to not know. The last suggestion the textbook states that environmental education must include is the life support limits of the earth. The earth only has so much space, so much dirt, so much energy at a time, and so much resources to support life. I think this third point kind of blurs into the first one. Understanding earth’s capacity limits fits into understanding earth’s natural capital. Miller argues that if people were educated on these three concepts then they will become more environmentally knowledgeable and aware and thus make decisions based off this newfound knowledge.
I agree with the textbook on the grounds that we have to increase environmental education. But if we follow the standard environmental rhetoric I believe we will fail to teach people the true scale of our problems. Sure teaching people that eating less meat is a good idea and would help decrease our methane production but then it puts further stress on the arable land crisis. Most of the solutions provided by this kind of rhetoric isn’t perfect and I believe it is very important to stress to people that research must be done to provide better solutions. As of right now there is no alternative to soil and we’re running out of it and as of right now there’s not much research being done on providing an alternative. If we educated people about these issues this could provide incentive for subsidies or companies to sponsor this kind of research as they could possibly see marketing potential.
Word Count: 1417
Citations:
1- Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Chapter 25: Philosophical Worldviews and Ethics. 19th ed. Boston, MA: Engage Learning, 2020.
2- Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Chapter 25: Philosophical Worldviews and Ethics. 19th ed. Boston, MA: Engage Learning, 2020.
3- Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Chapter 25: Philosophical Worldviews and Ethics. 19th ed. Boston, MA: Engage Learning, 2020.
4- Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Chapter 25: Philosophical Worldviews and Ethics. 19th ed. Boston, MA: Engage Learning, 2020.
Environmental Studies and Science 