Page 156 - Environment: The Science Behind the Stories

As the history of Western cultures (European and ranching would provide significant economic benefits while
European-derived societies) has progressed, people have doing little harm to aesthetics or human health, the anthropo-
granted intrinsic value and extended ethical consideration to centrist would conclude this was worthwhile, even if it would
more and more people and things. Today, concern for the wel- destroy habitat for many plants and animals. Conversely, if
fare of domesticated animals is evident in the great care many protecting the forest would provide greater economic, spir-
people provide for their pets. Animal rights advocates voice itual, or other benefits to people, an anthropocentrist would
concern for animals that are hunted, raised in pens, or used in favor its protection. In the anthropocentric perspective, any-
laboratory testing. Most people now accept that wild animals thing not providing a readily apparent benefit to people is con-
merit ethical consideration. Increasing numbers of people sidered to be of negligible value.
today see intrinsic value in whole natural communities. Some
go further and suggest that all of nature—living and nonliving Biocentrism Biocentrism ascribes intrinsic value to
things alike—should be ethically recognized. certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this
What has helped broaden our ethical domain in these perspective, human life and nonhuman life both have ethical
ways? Rising economic prosperity has played a role, by standing, so a biocentrist evaluates actions in terms of their
making us less anxious about our day-to-day survival. Sci- overall impact on living things. A biocentrist might oppose
ence has also played a role, by demonstrating that people do clearing a forest if this would destroy countless plants and
not stand apart from nature, but rather are part of it. Ecology animals, even if it would increase food production and gener-
makes clear that organisms are interconnected and that what ate economic growth for people. Some biocentrists advocate
affects plants, animals, and ecosystems also affects people. equal consideration for all living things, whereas others grant
Evolutionary biology shows that human beings, as one species some types of organisms more consideration than others.
out of millions, have evolved subject to the same pressures as
other organisms. Ecocentrism Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their
We can simplify our continuum of attitudes toward the effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living
natural world by dividing it into three ethical perspectives: and nonliving elements and their interrelationships. An eco-
anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism (FIguRE 6.3). centrist values the well-being of entire species, communities,
or ecosystems over the welfare of a given individual. Implicit
Anthropocentrism People who have a human-cen- in this view is that preserving systems generally protects their
tered view of our relationship with the environment display components, whereas protecting components may not safe-
anthropocentrism. An anthropocentrist denies, overlooks, guard the entire system. An ecocentrist would respond to a
or devalues the notion that nonhuman things have intrinsic proposal to clear forest by broadly assessing the potential
value. An anthropocentrist also evaluates the costs and bene- impacts on water quality, air quality, wildlife populations,
fits of actions solely according to their impact on people. For soil structure, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem services. Eco-
example, if cutting down a Costa Rican forest for farming or centrism is a more holistic perspective than biocentrism or
anthropocentrism. It encompasses a wider variety of entities
at a larger scale and seeks to preserve the connections that tie
them together into functional systems.
Ecocentrism

Environmental ethics has ancient roots
Biocentrism
Environmental ethics arose as an academic discipline in the
Anthropocentrism 1970s, but people have contemplated our ethical relations
with nature for thousands of years. The ancient Greek phi-
losopher Plato argued that humanity had a moral obliga- CHAPTER 6 • Ethi C s, E C ono mi C s, A nd s ustA in A bl E dE v E lopm E nt
tion to our environment, writing, “The land is our ancestral
home and we must cherish it even more than children cher-
ish their mother.”
Some ethicists and theologians have pointed to the reli-
gious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as sources
of anthropocentric hostility toward the environment. They
point out biblical passages such as, “Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every liv-
ing thing that moves upon the earth.” Such wording, accord-
FIguRE 6.3 We can categorize people’s ethical perspectives ing to many scholars, has encouraged animosity and disregard
as anthropocentric, biocentric, or ecocentric. Anthropocentrists
extend ethical standing only to human beings and judge actions in toward nature.
terms of their effects on people. Biocentrists value and consider all Others interpret sacred texts of these religions to encour-
living things, human and otherwise. Ecocentrists extend ethical con- age benevolent human stewardship over nature. Consider the
sideration to living and nonliving components of the environment holis- directive, “You shall not defile the land in which you live.” If
tically, valuing the larger functional systems of which they are a part. one views the natural world as God’s creation, then surely it 155

M06_WITH7428_05_SE_C06.indd 155 12/12/14 2:57 PM