What is your moral attitude towards nature?

[Eldritch]

We are neither natures “guardians” nor its “owner”.

It depends how you choose to view the issue I guess. Since we are the only species that understands how ephemeral life is, that gives us a special responsibility to protect it, and the fact that so far we've done a piss-poor job of it so far does not remove the responsibility.

[NordicPower]

We are neither natures “guardians” nor its “owner”.

We are a part of the physical world and like all life are driven by the need to reproduce and grow. We are the earth’s most successful form of life (though some would claim bacteria in terms of sheer survival success) hence we have out competed our rivals and the environment is being shaped to suit our needs, which inevitably means that life that cannot adapt to a human dominated world will become extinct (just like 99% of all species before us). The world wasn’t “created” for us but we are a product of life, not separate from it, mankind does nothing that no other successful species would do i.e. dominate.

I have to disagree here. Mankind does numerous things that other successful species do not do. We invent things which was first marked by our ability to harness fire. The things we do have a much longer range of impact on the environment than any other species on earth. We also do things that have no direct connection with our survival instincts, like, for example, helping other species. I'm sure you can think of many more examples.

We are the only species that has fashioned clothing for themselves. All of the things we have invented have allowed us to partially rise above nature. Humans are the only species with the ability to create art and music, or are conscious enough to be able to depict our surroundings and abstract ideas. We don't often see dogs or monkeys posting on internet forums either...

We do not have to depend on living near a natural water source, nor do we even have to be at the mercy of the climate we live in. I'm certainly not saying that this makes us better than other species, but mankind is rather unique on earth in this respect.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Eldritch
Since we are the only species that understands how ephemeral life is, that gives us a special responsibility to protect it

Protect life?

There isn’t a single thing humanity could possibly do right now that would end life on earth, we could (possibly) end our capacity to live on it (which is a different thing altogether) but not life itself.

Originally Posted by NordicPower
I have to disagree here. Mankind does numerous things that other successful species do not do. We invent things which was first marked by our ability to harness fire. The things we do have a much longer range of impact on the environment than any other species on earth. We also do things that have no direct connection with our survival instincts, like, for example, helping other species. I'm sure you can think of many more examples.

We are the only species that has fashioned clothing for themselves. All of the things we have invented have allowed us to partially rise above nature. Humans are the only species with the ability to create art and music, or are conscious enough to be able to depict our surroundings and abstract ideas. We don't often see dogs or monkeys posting on internet forums either...

We do not have to depend on living near a natural water source, nor do we even have to be at the mercy of the climate we live in. I'm certainly not saying that this makes us better than other species, but mankind is rather unique on earth in this respect.

I fail to see your disagreement since nothing you have written negates the fact that mankind is part of the physical world (which is what “nature” is).

[Eldritch]

There isn’t a single thing humanity could possibly do right now that would end life on earth, we could (possibly) end our capacity to live on it (which is a different thing altogether) but not life itself.

Have I said something to the contrary?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Eldritch
Have I said something to the contrary?

I’m assuming you are disagreeing with my statement here:

We are neither natures “guardians” nor its “owner”.

[Eldritch]

That's probably not how I myself would put it, no.

[Foxy]

I'd say DEEP ECOLOGY. I am a sort of pantheist.

[Joe McCarthy]

Anthropocentrism.

I'm an admirer of this former Reagan administration official who basically epitomized the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

[Daos]

I would say ecocentrism. Whatever happens to our environment affects us, whether we like it or not, so we should do our best to ensure our actions don't do (too much) harm. Despite doing our best to take refuge in an artificial environment, we are still part of Nature.

I for one am deeply saddened by the decline in biodiversity my area is experiencing. When I was a child, just 10 (!) years ago, the place was buzzing with wildlife, now its like a green desert...

[Fortis in Arduis]

Autocentric, actually.