Reading Response: “The Future of Environmental Ethics” by Holmes Rolston III

Reading Response: “The Future of Environmental Ethics” by Holmes Rolston III

Humans lived for thousands of years in cultures that operated within the bounds of the natural world. In most modern day societies, we live in a culture that does not seem to operate alongside nature or within nature, but at odds with nature. However, our culture is dependent on the existence of the natural world. Our working against nature, or our straining nature to its limits, destroys the necessary platform (our planet) for this culture to develop.

Natural history has always been determined by nature, and human culture only very recently began to operate and grow within natural history. However, modern human culture, our “technosphere,” is not only growing and reacting to natural events, but having a significant effect on natural events. The extinction of species, disappearance of ecosystems, and even the state of the earth’s climate are being affected and determined by human activity. All organisms affect and change their environment to some degree, but humans are doing so on an incredibly large magnitude at an accelerated pace. Humans seem to be a very unnatural organism of the earth.

In our increasingly technological and manufactured world, nature comes to be defined and valued according to its relationship and practical value to us.

However, natural systems are so interconnected, we really don’t know what’s ultimately of value to us and what’s not. Certainly, we know animals and plants that are of direct value to us due to their nutritional or medicinal importance, but we don’t know all the steps and factors and other organisms required for the ultimate continued survival of the “important” organisms and systems. We could be harming or destroying what we view as pests, annoyances, or seemingly useless parts of nature without realizing that we are in fact in some way dependent on them. Arrogance appears not only the human assumption that all other beings or things in the world exist in relative importance to us, but also in the assumption that we actually understand what’s essentially important and what’s not in a system as massive, interconnected, and complex as the natural world.

 Global warming demonstrates the difficulties of understanding our relationship with nature and how large and convoluted and unclear certain problems are, as well as how people decide who’s to blame when things go wrong and who’s to fix them.

Some argue that biophilia, the natural urge of humans to like and surround themselves with nature, will counteract total and irreversible damage to the natural world. However, biophilia is at conflict with the evident tendency of humans to create cultures separating and distancing themselves from the natural world. Besides, there is a difference between enjoying hiking sometimes, and understanding the importance and defending the existence of ecosystems foreign and unpleasant to humans. Humans have an urge stronger than biophilia to consume the things they want as long as they are in supply, and we live in a culture that manipulates nature to an extreme degree, so that we have those desired things, healthy or not, often in great supply. This other side of human nature leads to the excess causing damage to nature.

If we talk about nature as though we are above it, as though it is something under our control and power, then can we really look to human nature as a scapegoat or a savior for our treatment of the natural world?

Rolston compares the idea of sustainable development with the idea of a sustainable biosphere. They are really just different lenses with which to view the future of human development within the natural world. Sustainable development is seeing nature as simply the limiting factor to what we can accomplish with development and technology. With a sustainable biosphere, the health of the biosphere is foremost in importance. Development is welcome to operate and grow within these limits, but it is not to push to the extremes. The natural elements within the biosphere are not valued solely by their use to humans. The problem with sustainable development is that development will “inevitably overshoot” the sustainability of the biosphere. Humans have the ability and economic incentive to assert power over nature. Patterns demonstrate that humans will continue to assert this power over nature to stretch development out as long as possible. Looking at sustainable development really is looking at a huge system with a narrow lens. How is sustainable development practically different from a sustainable biosphere?

Rolston discusses the relationship between social justice and environmental conservation. The unequal distribution of wealth in the world apparently enables greater harm to the natural world. The rich and powerful are often the most responsible for the widespread and chronic issues of damage and destruction to the natural world. Though responsible, they are the one best able to avoid the more immediate consequences of this environmental destruction to humans, in terms of their health and quality of life. Those more dependent on the natural environment, and those with no access to decent health care or clean water feel these consequences.  If we do want to work to preserve or restore nature, then some humans will bear the costs more than others, very likely the poorest humans who are least able to bear such costs. The rich will be the ones to easily avoid the discomfort or harm that will result from environmental solutions, for they have the power to influence who is affected and they have the wealth to ensure their own comfort is a priority. How can a more equal distribution of wealth lead to better treatment of our environment?

Some sides may argue that we can have it all. Unrestricted growth and development economically, socially, politically, and we can still maintain healthy nature and biodiversity. Biodiversity serves humans too, so humans, in their desire to have it all, will preserve biodiversity for its aesthetic beauty and value to us. However, when people see themselves as the ultimate value with everything else in relative value, it’s not a mindset conducive to causing lasting change in the way we deal with nature.  Rolston argues that we can have it all, but we have to see the “all” as something different. What kind of goals or values would allow us to hold both humanity and nature as things to be respected and preserved?