Environmental Ethics
Our
Interaction and Relationship with Our Environment
The human race’s interaction with
the environment may vary from person to person, but in general human’s tend to
harvest and take from the environment at their own will for their own personal
benefit. People take from the environment without giving back to the
environment or taking precautions to preserve it, at least most of the
population seems to work this way. Long story short; economy and personal
benefit comes first in most peoples decisions, and while this may seem like the
best decision short term, it may not be the best in the long run, and may not
even be the best decision for other people. In some cases not only is the
surrounding environment negatively impacted, but also other people may be
affected as well. Each person has a different meaning for environmental ethics,
and then a different set of ethics at that. I have my own meaning for ethics:
principals or guidelines that guide a person to do what is right throughout
life, or what is morally right. Since I have first enrolled in Ohio University
in August of 2011, my environmental ethics have evolved and changed greatly
over time. When it comes to environmental ethics, I believe that people should
do what is right for the environment and for the people around them. People
need to think about the risk, and what or who their decision is going to impact
before they make it. In today’s world people take resources for granted, and
will place their greed and personal economic benefit before the welfare of the
environment and other people, and learning this has changed my view and actions
towards the environment.
Before I attended Ohio University
for my college education, I was hardly at all aware of environmental problems.
Part of this was because where I attended school, the staff did not teach about
environmental problems and how they impact our current lives and our future. My
only exposure to anything related to environmental issues was when I heard
rumors about global warming, and I just believed it to be an over exaggeration,
or just a prediction. When I attended Ohio University, I began to take some
environmental geography classes and that is where I started to learn not only
was global warming a serious issue, but that there were many other issues as
well. As a result of this, my environmental ethics began to change drastically
very early on in college, and I myself became much more environmentally aware
in my daily life.
On
top of global warming being caused by burning fossil fuels and putting carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, I became aware of overpopulation, oil shortages,
water shortages, and resource depletion as a whole due to the high population.
The Earth’s human population is already estimated to be too high, and it
continues to grow faster than ever before, which causes poverty levels to rise.
The growing population also requires a higher demand of resources that are
already being over harvested. As a result the amount of fresh water for
drinking is being depleted and forces hundreds of millions of people to live
with lack of access to clean water. The demand for fossil fuels also increases,
which not only depletes the supply of oil and coal, but also increases the
amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. Another important
resource that is being depleted faster than they are being renewed is trees. An
increased population requires more shelter and other supplies or necessities
that require wood, and as a result deforestation increases. Deforestation
eliminates a part of the environment that absorbs carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere, and causes the carbon dioxide absorbed to be released back into the
atmosphere, and only increases the effects of global warming. As the
environmental scientist put it in the show “Years of Living Dangerously,”
“deforestation is a double wammy (for the effects of global warming).” Due to
overpopulation, I truly believe that the human population actually needs large
food corporations and agribusinesses. I feel that the food corporations and
agribusinesses are needed to feed the population, despite how poorly they treat
the animals. I believe it is ethically wrong for many food corporations to
abuse and treat the animals the way they do, but they are however probably
needed for the human population. On the other hand, I do find it hard to
believe that food corporations cannot spend some extra money to ensure those
animals are feed properly and have an adequate amount of space. Long story
short, my environmental ethics in a few years went from being just about
nothing to believing that the human population is facing many issues and needs
to start working on fixing those issues, reducing the use of natural resources,
and start thinking about how an action affects the environment and other
people.
I
believe that I was already very environmentally aware and had strong
environmental ethics before this semester, and those ethics evolved even more
and I became more environmentally aware on a smaller scale after a couple
readings and documentaries. Michael Pollan’s essay “Why Bother?” got me
thinking about that question and how important that question actually is for
how people currently view and interact with the environment. This essay helped me
look at how an individual can possibly make a difference as opposed to just
looking at the big picture and seeing that the whole world needs to change.
Start at the individual level and then hopefully it will spread to enough
people that it will make a big difference. The reading “Dispatch from Toxic
Town” and the documentary “On Coal River” made me more aware of how companies
not only impact the environment, but also how they may affect other people as
well. They showed me, that many companies will place their desire for a
monetary profit before the wellbeing of other people. “Natural School Reform”
by Richard Louv also presents proof that interaction with the environment
during schooling not only can increase an individual’s view of the environment,
but can also boost test scores and overall intelligence. All of these evolved
my prior environmental ethics slightly, and helped me to look at the small details
of a big picture and to see how those small details are contributing to the
problems in the big picture.
In
Michael Pollan’s essay “Why Bother?” he discusses that this question goes
through many people’s minds when it comes to going green and trying to make a
difference. People believe that if they make a sacrifice to make a difference,
that it will not make any difference, because there are billions of other
people in the world that are just counteracting the small difference, and
therefore it is useless… why bother? Pollan discusses that sure many other
people are still carrying out their normal routine which may negate any
positive impacts done by an individual, but that one individual making an
unnoticeable difference can influence others around them through their actions,
which will eventually lead to more people contributing. Then that slowly
evolves from one individual to a group of people making a small difference, and
many of those small groups together can make a big difference. I totally agree with
Pollan that one individual can influence others to try and make a difference
and eventually that individual made a big difference through influence. I also
believe that even if it is one person trying to make a difference, sure the
impact may be unnoticeable, but it is still better than nothing at all. I feel
that the “why bother?” question is a very important question that helps us
understand human interaction with the environment. Also it is most likely the
question that is preventing people from trying to make a difference. Imagine if
the question did not exist and everyone attempted to make a difference
(minimized fossil fuel use, conserved water as best as they can, etc). Many of
our current environmental problems would most likely be less potent, or may not
exist at all.
“Dispatch
from Toxic Town” by Tara Hulen is a classic example of a large company placing
their profits above the environment and other people’s lives. In this reading,
Monsanto moves into an area next to a town called Anniston. Anniston is known
as a model town and is a home to many people. Monsanto begins to pollute the
nearby stream (actions like this is why so much freshwater is undrinkable) and
environment with PCBs. People in the so called model town begin to get sick and
have no idea what is causing it. Fish in the stream are also getting sick and
deformed due to the pollution. People start to learn that the sicknesses are
coming from the pollution in the surrounding environment, which is coming from
Monsanto. People are then forced to leave Anniston, which at this point is
known as a toxic town, and are forced to live elsewhere while Monsanto stays.
This large corporation turned a model town into a toxic town, and not only
destroyed the surrounding environment, but also the lives of the people. I
believe this is definitely ethically wrong, that a company can ruin people’s
lives or cause deaths and not care, and get away with it. The documentary “On
Coal River” is another example this problem. A coal mining company moves into
an area near a town of people, and blows the mountain top off of Coal River
Mountain to start mining coal. The company’s actions pollute the air and the
nearby river, and just like “Dispatch from Toxic Town” people start to get ill.
The people then start to protest and press charges against the company for
their actions, and the company continues to do what they are doing. The company
is there to make money, and since it also improves the economy the company gets
away with it. Although the children at schools near the area are also being
affected, the company is still trying to make a quick buck and tells the people
to pick up and leave if they do not like what is being done. Again, I think
this is ethically wrong since not only does it have negative effects on the
environment, but it also puts human lives at stake. Companies like these need
to think about who and what their actions are going to impact before they make
a decision.
In
“Natural School Reform” Richard Louv compares the United States’ method of teaching
and school curriculum to other nations around the world, especially Finland. He
shows proof that Finland is superior to the United States in testing and
overall intelligence. However, surprisingly Finnish schools work very
differently from schools here in the United States, and actually allow there
students to go outside more and interact with the environment much more than
the United States. Here in the United States we put students into a classroom
(sometimes with no windows) and keep them there to study and hardly ever let
them go outside. Schools in the United States have very short recesses and some
schools do not even have recess at all. Students in the United States get very
little interaction with the environment, while Finnish schools give their
students a lot of time outside and even teach lessons outside, giving the
students a lot of interaction with their environment. So, students in the
United States spend more time in the classroom and are scoring lower on tests
compared to Finnish students. Richard Louv is showing a positive correlation
between time interacting with the environment and overall intelligence. I found
this very surprising when I read this, because I figured that here in the
United States where we basically put kids into a classroom and just pound them
with information and stress the importance of testing, that we would rank
higher in intelligence. On the other hand, maybe it is because we put a lot of
stress on our students and just push for learn, learn, learn, and nothing else,
whereas in Finland they allow their students to relax and have fun at the same
time as learning. I believe that the United States needs to start adopting the
Finnish approach to schooling, since statistics show that it works, and because
if students get more interaction with the environment, they will probably
appreciate it more. This may also be the reason why many young kids do not like
school, because it is boring when you do nothing but sit in a classroom all day
and try to learn. I also believe that if our students get more interaction with
the environment and become more informed about how our actions may impact it,
then students will become more environmentally aware at a young age, which may
result in overall better care for the environment when they live on their own.
My
environmental ethics have evolved and changed greatly over the last three
years. I already considered myself quite environmentally aware before this year
and believe I have still become more environmentally conscious. My knowledge on
how humans interact with the environment on a micro level has definitely grown,
and it has helped me to be more environmentally friendly in my daily life with
water, electricity, food waste, and so on. Pollan’s Essay “Why Bother?” really
got me thinking about the question on an individual level and showed me how I
can make a difference, whether small or big. “Dispatch from Toxic Town” and “On
Coal River” have shown me how a large company can impact the lives of many
people and how some people will place money before almost anything. Richard
Louv’s “Natural School Reform” really shocked me when Louv showed that the
United States who stresses hardly on academics actually ranked lower in
intelligence than Finland which allows their students to have fun and interact
with the environment while teaching. People in the world today need to start
trying to make a difference like Pollan says in his essay, and people also need
to start working on conserving resources, as well as ensuring certain actions
will not harm the environment in extreme ways or other people. Basically,
people need to try their best to fix current environmental issues so they do
not get worse in the future, or so new problems do not develop.
Works Cited
Adams, J. Wood.
“On Coal River Four Minute Trailer.” YouTube. 25 March 2009. Web.
13
April
2014.
Hulen, Tara.
“Dispatch from Toxic Town.” Listening to
Earth. Baruch College, City University
Of New York: Pearson Longman,
2005.73-77.
Louv, Richard.
“Natural School Reform.” Last Child in the Woods : Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill,
NC : Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005. 201- 222.
Pollan, Michael.
“Why Bother?” The Allyn-Bacon Guide to Writing: Concise Edition. 6th
ed. Ed. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean,
and June Johnson. Boston: Longman, 2012. 87-93.
22, 2014.
posted by Unknown @ 2:25 PM
0 Comments
