What is your moral attitude towards nature?

[Aemma]

Assuming that any given member here has some kind of positive feelings towards Nature and minimally feels some sense of moral responsibility towards it, in which camp would you best fit and why?


Anthropocentrism: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in mankind and as such you practise ethics based on stewardship of nature. The environment is valuable to the extent that it is useful or necessary for human well-being.

OR

Biocentrism: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in individual life forms and as such you practise life-centered ethics. You believe that all life has moral standing and humans are not inherently superior but are mere members of life's community.

OR

Ecocentrism: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in ecosystems, not individual life forms or species even, and as such you practise ecosystem-centered ethics. You believe that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. Your ethics involve self-imposed limitations on freedom of actions based on the recognition of being a member of an interdependent community.

OR

Deep Ecology: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in a larger ecosystem or biosphere. Your ethics involve a deeply felt sense of kinship with all life and all life systems are sacred and valuable. You believe that all species should be permitted to flourish and seek self-determination. You practise a metaphysics of interdependence.

[Equinox]

I suppose if I was to choose a camp it would be that of the Ecocentrist.

Man has so far done a great job of destroying the diversity in life and has essentially moulded lifeforms to how he has seen fit.

For me a community is the sum of its parts, if not more. Environmentalists aggravate me to no end - for they do not see that simply placing X amount of animal Y into environment Z will not be at all beneficial. Environmentalists treat symptoms, not problems.

[Lithium]

If I have to choose a camp it would be definitely the Biocentrism . We may destroy the Nature the way we want but that doesn't means we are superior. Our lives depend on the Nature. With every damage we are doing to the natural environment we are killing ourselves, because the Nature was before us and will be after us...

[Fortis in Arduis]

Anthropocentrism.

I love and live in a very human environment, the metropolis.

I think that this is the natural environment for humans, viewing those who live outside as being eccentric and also heroic, to an extent, as they have so much more to deal with!

I live fascinated by buildings, gardens, nature tamed. What we do is so amazing and so complex, but I want humanity to always remain at the centre.

No to the Bladerunner future!

[Bloodeagle]

I would be considered an Ecocentrist. :)
Everyone searches for meaning in life, for supportive convictions that take various forms. Many look to faiths that ignore or discount the importance of this world, not realizing in any profound sense that we are born from Earth and sustained by it throughout our lives. In today’s dominating industrial culture, Earth-as-home is not a self-evident percept. Few pause daily to consider with a sense of wonder the enveloping matrix from which we came and to which, at the end, we all return. Because we are issue of the Earth, the harmonies of its lands, seas, skies and its countless beautiful organisms carry rich meanings barely understood. We are convinced that until the Ecosphere is recognized as the indispensable common ground of all human activities, people will continue to set their immediate interests first. Without an ecocentric perspective that anchors values and purposes in a greater reality than our own species, the resolution of political, economic, and religious conflicts will be impossible. Until the narrow focus on human communities is broadened to include Earth’s ecosystems – the local and regional places wherein we dwell – programs for healthy sustainable ways of living will fail. A trusting attachment to the Ecosphere, an aesthetic empathy with surrounding Nature, a feeling of awe for the miracle of the Living Earth and its mysterious harmonies, is humanity’s largely unrecognized heritage. Affectionately realized again, our connections with the natural world will begin to fill the gap in lives lived in the industrialized world. Important ecological purposes that civilization and urbanization have obscured will re-emerge. The goal is restoration of Earth’s diversity and beauty, with our prodigal species once again a cooperative, responsible, ethical member.

[anonymaus]

The only moral responsibility is to mankind and, as we currently require Earth's ecology to remain not just alive but healthy, it is to our benefit to be good stewards of the planet.

In time we will no longer need this Earth; in time we will be able to create the necessary conditions for life in other environments or on other planets. The inevitability of that forthcoming situation helps reveal the mechanical and mundane nature of our current environs--it's nothing to worship and it is worthwhile only insomuch as we require it.

[Breedingvariety]

What is your moral attitude towards nature?
I have the same attitude towards nature as nature has towards me- nihilism.

Deep Ecology: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in a larger ecosystem or biosphere. Your ethics involve a deeply felt sense of kinship with all life and all life systems are sacred and valuable. You believe that all species should be permitted to flourish and seek self-determination. You practise a metaphysics of interdependence.
We are interdependent. But natures phenomena of victim precludes the possibility of all flourishing and being self- determining.

[NordicPower]

I cannot honestly choose from any of those.

Humans seem either in some ways outside of, or above nature- yet in other ways we are an inseparable part of it. Ideally we should be the stewards and safekeepers of nature, and invent technology that is compatible with preserving nature, species and ecosystems, instead of destroying the earth and looting all of her "resources".

[Eldritch]

I suppose I would go for the first option -- with the exception that we are nature's guardians, not owners. And I strongly disagree with the idea that nature exists only for our well-being. I do believe that nature is valuable in itself Besides, like it or not, for the time being at least we ourselves are a part of it.

There are parts on all other options too that seem to ring true, but I'm leery of mystical terms, such as "sacred".

[Liffrea]

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.

Of course it is in our interests to ensure that the earth as a resource remains able to sustain human life, we have no where else to go at present. We evolved in a single blink of earth time when the circumstances were right for us to develop, all those species that people mourn over because of “evil” man are marked anyway, the earth changes, species die, others evolve. We’re smart enough to understand this, it is the best weapon we have.

[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... :D

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.

[Austin]

Biocentrism: Your primary locus of moral concern resides in individual life forms and as such you practise life-centered ethics. You believe that all life has moral standing and humans are not inherently superior but are mere members of life's community.



I believe firmly that every organism is self-motivated and in this cycle of raw self interest the universe functions. All notions of interdependence are delusions based on some form of self-interest.


Friends are social buffers to ones ego. I've seen studies where something crazy like 70%+ or so of people after the age of thirty-forty no longer were close friends with almost anyone they knew in highschool/college/under25. This implies what I'm saying. We are organisms in a world in which life functions entirely off self interest. Friends are convenient and even necessary while in school and or young and learning yet in older age as a human progresses through life friends dissipate into ones past. Evidence that friends are largely a social function based entirely on self interest with what friends bring at certain stages in life. When friends are no longer beneficial to a humans self interest, such as when they are 35 and have two kids and a job, then said friends are either discarded or told off.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Here is some information that I believe worthwhile to the question.

Life's survival probability [on Earth]:

without Humans = 0
with Humans = >0
without technology = 0
with technology = >0

Our Planet, along with all others in the universe, exist not only in a spatial habitable zone, but a temporal one as well.

A star systems habitable zone will expand and contract depending on the life-cycle stage of its star. Culture, and therefore consciousness, is the only game changer with regard to the conservation of a star systems life. This revelation increases the importance of whatever sentient life exists in that star system. Man is the only known entity with this ability, which makes him the most important and valuable lifeform in the solar system and possibly in the Universe (although we know the probability of other intelligent life is ~100%, but since we never observed it...).

All life, in this solar system and possibly others, will be dependent on Man for its survival.

A similar post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=252707#post252707)