10/14/2018 0 Comments Talking about fishesThe only living creatures that know the art of crying, other than human beings, are fishes. Since a long time, there has been a debate among literate people whether fishes cry or they don't. The real question should be, what can make a fish cry? The beauty of asking this question is that knowing the reason for which fishes can cry will open the possibilities for either of the cases being true. If the fishes have a reason to cry, why would you think they won't cry? And if they indeed can cry, then we are not alone in the universe to feel the exotic emotion of grief.
0 Comments
10/4/2018 0 Comments Embracing the UnknownIndulgence in the pursuit of knowledge does not automatically confirm inclination towards a particular result. Exploration does not need a belief in the existence of an entity, but a curiosity about the unknown. I say that there is no ghost in that abandoned house on the outskirts of the town, and my friend says that there is indeed a ghost there. We both will agree that exploration of the abandoned house is absolutely needed, even though we both have opposite views on the existence of ghosts. One says that extraterrestrial life exists and other maintains that it is far-fetched fantasy and is unlikely to be true. They both will (have to) agree that exploration of outer space is necessary to satisfy the mutual curiosity. The same is true with those who believe that the cure to cancer is within reach, or producing clean energy is worth it or creating zero-waste systems is possible. They, or the skeptics, are equally served by the explorers.
11/1/2017 0 Comments TechnocracyMore than two decades ago, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials arrested Ted Kaczynski, also known as ‘The Unabomber’. His crime was killing three individuals and injuring twenty-three others in a series of letter bombs. He did it in an apparent revolt against ‘technocracy’ prevailing in the society. The meanings of the word ‘technocracy’ evolved over a period, initially meaning application of scientific knowledge for solving the problems in society, to the technology ruling the functioning of a society. The Unabomber meant the latter definition of this term and was opposed to it. He got his manifesto published in major newspapers in the United States after blackmailing them. This manifesto revealed his thoughts on toppling the technocratic system over. While the Unabomber was a student at Harvard, he participated in a study related to psychology and that deeply affected his social behavior. The study involved discussion of deep political views of an individual and then their torture by questioning their views. This study was not outside the laws during that time. However, such a study with human beings as subject is not allowed in today’s time. Ethically, such a study should not be carried out, even if it is at the expense of continued lack of knowledge in a subject. This is because experimenting with a human being psychologically is very unlikely to carry out as a mere ‘simulation’, as the subject is changed mentally. This authority to carry out a change in someone’s mind can also be used for unethical practices such as brainwashing. Hence, this type of study is unethical in view of the freedom of thoughts. Also, this study is likely partially responsible for Kaczynski to take such extreme actions. Kaczynsci, even though urged other people to abandon the technology in every form, used technology to carry out his plans. This is a contradiction that is clearly seen in his actions and needs further thoughts. Whether it was for the communication of his message to the broader public, or for the destruction he caused with his mail bombs, the use of technology was very crucial in his actions. However, in his manifesto he clearly mentioned what a technology should be used for, if one wants to overthrow the societal system that is built on the basis of technology. He says that one can easily be tempted to make use of all the technology available to accomplish their tasks. Although, this action will push someone in the technocratic system again. He argued that the use of technology should be bare minimum and should only be used for the purpose of destroying the larger technocratic system or to get spread the message in a faster way. In this case, I feel that his actions seem ironical when one looks at his ideologies. Because, his suggestion to use technology only when it is required, can also be followed without destroying the larger technocratic system. 'The Amish' is one such group which believes in the ideology of using technology to a minimum required level and living a pre-industrial life. Looking at all these things, the arguments of the Unabomber is largely weakened. The manifesto of the Unabomber was thoroughly studied by various people, in spite of him being a domestic terrorist. It can be argued that because of his actions, any of the ideas he wrote in that manifesto do not stand any moral authority to be taken seriously, however logical they may be. It is inevitable that any perception about the writer will cloud the judgement about the writing. However, the writing can always be studied objectively without connecting each piece of it to the writer’s life. Also, some people might be proven to be morally incorrect in one time and correct in some other. An example of this is Bhagat Singh, who was convicted during the freedom movement of India. He was a revolutionary who constantly carried out underground operations to protest against the British rule and gain freedom for the country. The British government had put a prize on Bhagat Singh and his associates after branding them as ‘domestic terrorists’. However, when he surrendered to the government, he narrated their intentions behind their actions in the court. These views were then made public by the media and the people got a chance to see the actions of Bhagat Singh and his associates from their own viewpoint. Hence, I believe that studying The Unabomber’s manifesto objectively or discussing the correctness of his ideas is not ethically incorrect. Because, each one has the right to communicate their ideas to the public, independent of their social or criminal status. The Unabomber strongly advocated a complete overthrow of the system in which technology rules almost everything that is related to a common person. He was opposed to a rapid advancement of industrialization and to any form of control of technology the civilization. He suggested that the economic and technological basis of today’s society is not sustainable for the earth and for human civilization. Hence, it must be destroyed and rebuilt. However, this argument also means that the current government runs using technology as one of their tools. However, he clearly mentioned that the revolution he was suggesting was not political. It is difficult for a government to change everything that it runs on. At the same time, it is not impossible. In many cases, the people in actual power are not the technocrats. They rely on people having a strong hold on technology to make decisions. If the politicians and beaurocrats take time and slowly end the ties of government with the people directing technology, then it is possible to replace it with another basis of economy, such as ‘individual farming’. Hence, it is possible to change the system of technological dominance without the government falling. In conclusion, the Kaczynski's case is as interesting to study as the manifesto written by him. From the communication of Prof. Skrbina with Kaczynski, the thoughts on radical environmentalism were evolved to a next level. I believe that sharing these thoughts, which have a merit of their own, is not unethical. As Prof. Skrbina mentioned, if someone has the intentions to carry out destruction, then that person will not wait for any motivation coming from these thoughts. Also, the merit of these thoughts dos not justify the actions of Kaczynski in any way. As there are environmental activists who were able to propagate their thoughts without resorting to violence, the Unabomber case remains an exceptional case, that should be looked at in a purely academic point of view. A technophobe's perspective If we look at technology in today's world with an objective point of view, we can see that it is rapidly becoming an integral part of our lives. It is not difficult to find a person around us who cannot live for a single day without being surrounded by technology. Technophobes, or the people fearing excessive dominance of technology in human lives, often talk about the problems associated with the use of technology in the society. The psychological problems with the technology can be in the form of alienation of a person from the society. For example, one who excessively depends on social media for the communication will face reduced social interaction and will become more self-involved. Such a drastic change in how humans used to interact will impair a human being's ability to be a good citizen. The physical problems with the technologies such as cellphones can be in the form of increased anxiety in the absence of the technology or change in the stimulus-response systems of the brain. For example, there are cases of people perceiving an itch as a vibration of their mobile phone. The moral problems of technology can be that, it works to replace the human workforce with machines. For example, in many industrial processes, robots and machines now do the work which human labor used to do. If the technology is not used carefully in this case, it will result in unemployment. That poses moral issues, as no one should suffer because of technological advancement of others. 11/1/2017 0 Comments Love canalA shocking incidence of environmental pollution, a series of unfortunate deaths and an outrage against state negligence. This is the picture of the Love canal tragedy that happened in the state of New York near the Niagara Falls in the 1970s. Around 900 families, whose houses were built on a site heavily polluted by toxic chemicals, started facing health problems. When the number of such cases started growing, people started looking for reasons behind this. It was not long before they identified that their neighborhood was a former dumpsite for chemicals. Soon, the awareness spread through the residents and there was a movement to evacuate the area, which caught national attention.
In this incidence, there were many stakeholders involved, who were either responsible for the toxic contamination or were victims of it. The stakeholders were residents of the Love canal, local and state officials, federal government and the industry who dumped toxic waste at the site. The residents were concerned because they were affected by unethical handling of hazardous waste. The local and state officials had the responsibility to start acting on the issue immediately. The federal government was a stakeholder too, because they had to give a direction about remediation of the issue. In addition, they had to control the relative authority of various other stakeholders in taking decisions in this matter. The industry was a stakeholder for two of its important duties. First, to carry out safe disposal of the toxic waste, instead of merely its ‘containment’. Second, if a safe disposal has not been carried out, then the possible hazards to the residents should be communicated. There were various people responsible for this incidence. Without any doubt, the Hooker Chemical Company had the biggest responsibility in avoiding this tragedy. When they decided to dump their toxic waste into the abandoned canal, they should have disclosed all the possible risks and negative impacts of their solution to the local government. This action of dumping waste was not against the law at that time. However, the corporate companies have to deal responsibly when it comes to the impact of their activities on public well-being or environment. This is because, by providing the space in an around the habitat, the corporate companies are shown trust, for maintaining public health and safety. It should be in the corporate responsibility clause to continuously assess the possible risks and threats to the health of the local community and environment. In this case, the hazards were checked after receiving complaints from the residents. However, the data was not made available to the public. This practice, although in a public interest to protect important data from falling into wrong hands, reduces the trust in the government. I personally feel that the data should be public, even though there are a few risks associated with doing it. These risks are either be a situation of panic among public or antisocial activities which may lead to a risk for public. However, the police officials should keep a watch around these risky sites, to spot any unusual activity. While interpreting the scientific data, the correlation between the irresponsible dumping of toxic waste and cases of damage to public health was subjected to a stringent statistical test. However, there was not a strong correlation. Although, strong correlations are considered necessary in the research community, in the case of public hazards, even the weak correlations should be taken seriously. Other compelling evidences should not be neglected. For example, the parameters covered to assess any risk to public health in any study are limited. The other health complaints from different residents, even if in a large number, may not have found a place in the study. The environmental degradation and subsequent public health concerns associated with this incidence lead to ethical issues. Looking from the perspective of environmental ethics, the incidence shows shocking negligence on the part of industry and government. The human activities such as excessive chemical waste generation by industries impact the balance in nature and start making it unhealthy. It is a moral responsibility of humans to avoid such a negative impact on the well-being of the environment that they deal with. In an eco-centric approach towards this issue, the environment itself is an entity that deserves to be treated with respect. On the other hand, it is also seen from this study, that humans and environment are connected to each other in a stronger bond than what is usually perceived. In either perspective, this issue demanded immediate attention. In an interesting incident, the residents of this neighborhood locked up the visiting EPA representatives to communicate strongly about their demands. However, from the video footage of Lois Gibbs, it can be clearly seen that they were treated with utmost respect and this move was not out of any personal rage. Looking at the bigger issue which involved serious losses to public and the lack of strong action from the government, a strong demand from the residents were necessary. Hence, this action by the residents cannot be considered unethical. It was equally shocking to see the houses in the Love canal area being sold again, 35 years after this incident. The new residents of these houses can be financially poor and desperate for an affordable house. However, selling a house that has a future risk of health hazard is itself unethical. This is because, the standards of health and safety should be same for everyone irrespective of their financial status. Also, rewarding someone for staying in such neighborhoods is not a good idea. Instead, abandoned homes in other safe areas can be purchased and refurbished, later to be sold at lower prices. Or else, those abandoned houses can also be given on lease at affordable prices to the financially weak population. If I were to buy a home today, I would check whether the surroundings are safe and its history is clean in terms of hazardous activity. I would ask the person trying to sell me the property, whether the neighborhood is checked for any possible risks to the residents. I would also demand an access to the documents related to these assessments. In case, a similar incidence of toxin seepage is repeated today, the hazards to the public health will be no different than what they would have been 35 years ago. However, the history has already taught that the political and financial interests will take precedence over any scientific evidence. The measurement of hazard is important. But the process of getting the relocation of residence done in a timely manner can only be accelerated by political persuasion. Hence, the residents may want to focus on demanding an urgent action from the local politicians. From the Love canal case study, it is seen that the financial interests of a few stakeholders caused this problem from being solved for a long time. Clearly, there were vested interests for politicians, company officials and a few scientists as well. Prevention of financial setback to a company was given priority over public safety. In future, if the financial security of corporates is made independent of their communication of any risks arising from their business to the people, the problem can be avoided. Meaning, the government agencies should help the company in taking any necessary remediation action in case a hazard occurs. The state and federal governments could have played their roles in a better way by supporting the public demand for immediate relocation rather than protecting the interests of the polluting company. In addition, the nature deserves more respect from the humans and their actions. Every human activity, that uses natural resources or space, should protect the health of the existing environment at that location. 11/1/2017 0 Comments Dust BowlI often get annoyed when too much dust comes through my window and I have to clean my room for the next half an hour. However, the dust came into houses of thousands of people in the Great Plains for hours at a time, for years. The so-called ‘Dust Bowl’ of 1930’s cannot be entirely attributed to the whims of nature. Thanks to the industrial revolution, the farmers on the plains were planting wheat in a vast amount in a short time. A mule capable of planting three acres a day was replaced by a tractor planting fifty acre a day. On the top of that, there were incentives from government in the form of free train rides to the plains and doubled the size of the land claim. Due to availability of large markets, plowing of natural grasses and planting with tractors was going on at high rates. These activities were stalled when the drought hit in 1932. In the absence of any plantation, the exposed soil was heated up and was blown by the wind. Its amount was astonishingly estimated to be 30 million tons. This amount of soil can fill half of the Grand Canyon.
This whole fiasco was named ‘Dust Bowl’ by a reporter named Robert Geiger. In total, there were 14, 38 and 22 dust storms in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 respectively. The entire phenomena lasted for ten years until it was raining again in 1939. The darkest day during this time, 14th of April, 1935 was remembered as the 'Black Sunday'. The dust stormed of this day lasted 27 days and nights after that. After that, the dust of this particular storm reached Washington D.C. and soon they passed a law creating what came to be known as the 'Soil Conservation Service'. It was headed by Hugh Bennett, who is considered as the 'Father of soil conservation'. This service was aimed at helping farmers avoid the creation of such a dust bowl in the future. A program created as a lesson from such a vast devastation deserves to be upheld in the future. The consequences of stopping funds to such a successful program are very well known from the past experiences. Allowing such kind of destruction again, for no reason, is unethical and should not be committed by a responsible state machinery. The term 'Dust Bowl' indicates a geographical area that encompasses five states: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and parts of Colorado. The origin was these dust storms, also known as ‘Black Blizzards’ was difficult to trace, as they often travelled over many miles. However, the dust that they brought with them was unique in color and it was used to identify its origin. Black colored dust was supposed to have come from Kansas, red from Oklahoma, brown from Texas and grey from Colorado or New Mexico. The plains were affected by drought, in 1931, before the dust storms started. Many years later, it was found from the investigations, that the dust storms made the drought worse. A high amount of dust in the air kept the Sun's energy to reach the ground and the surfaces of water bodies. This affected the water evaporation cycle and hence the rains afterwards. Consequently, the cycle continued. The public health was largely affected as well. There were continuous and widespread cases of dust pneumonia. The children in these areas were more vulnerable to health effects of dust. The problem was so severe that the Red Cross had to distribute thousands of dust masks and open hospitals to help people concerned with the symptoms. At the same time, people used several home remedies to keep the dust off the limits of their house, for example, sealing the windows. However, the absence of plastic and other modern adhesives kept the sealing from being near perfect and the dust seeped in. Covering the mouth with a wet cloth was one of the remedies that was used to reduce the amount of dust being inhaled. The farm animals were defenseless when the dust congested their lungs and they died of suffocation. In another case, the storms full of dust created decline in the population of predators who ate grasshoppers and jackrabbits. That made the number of these preys ascend without a bound. That was devastating for the farms and fields. In short, it made an entire section of an ecosystem collapse. With the continuous development and application of technology in the farming, new methods to conserve soil was employed. One of them was no-till farming, where the farming was planted on the remains of previous season's crops. However, use of chemicals to kill weeds keeps the process from being entirely conservation friendly. Another was to use the drought-resistant crops, which inherently have a capacity to survive an arid climate. This story of dust bowl is overwhelming and at the same time eye-opening. The assumptions of humanity about the unlimited obedience on earth have been proven false in such calamitous ways. At the same time, the suffering of people who were victims of this calamity are beyond imagination. Yet, I like to imagine putting myself in the shoes of people living on the plains at the time of the dust bowl. I would prefer staying at the plains and make full use of the government programs to conserve soil to enable restoration of soil on the ground. Vacating the place will make the land go waste in future. I would also put efforts to make the same land fertile again. Only if it fails, I would consider the option of moving to another region. This is because, moving to another place puts a lot of strain on the resources available at that place. The authorities in the new state may not have the time or funds readily available to take care of this migration. Hence, I feel it's important to stay where I already am and improve the conditions there. In current times, there are droughts which come and go in various states in the USA. If these droughts, persist for next three to five years, then there will a situation which can give rise to dust storms. Even if this reason doesn't hold true, the anthropogenic climate change is also sufficient to make the southern parts of the country's drier over the century. In this case, the states like Arizona, Texas, New Mexico are likely to experience a dust-storm situation. On the top of that, programs preventing soil erosion are finding apathy from the government. The behavior contrasts with morality that one has to feel obligated to, towards the environment. In any case, human activities and decisions are likely to be the deciding factor in triggering the next Dust Bowl. 11/1/2017 0 Comments Monarch butterfliesThe environmental problems faced by citizens on planet earth are often 'out of anybody's sight'. That means, these problems do not directly affect a person or community. Instead, they make serious and permanent changes in ecosystems, which can be seen only over a long period. This results in a missing sense of 'urgency' when it comes to action on these issues. The impact of environmental damage is equally felt across different species and geographies. However, each species is a part of biological food chain and changes in its population would bring a change in population of other species as well.
Monarch butterflies is one such species that has seen a decline in its population, which is proven to be statistically significant, after observation for decades. Their annual migration to Mexico and return to USA during spring is a significant event for their survival. But, the scientists studying their natural life cycle found that there are barriers in this migration, clearly sprouted due to human activities. For example, the haphazard spraying of herbicides to kill wild plants in the name of 'weed', has destroyed 'milk weeds', which were an important source of food for these butterflies. On the other hand, there is increase in the temperature of mountains in Mexico, where the Monarchs reside during the fall. This change in temperature is almost certainly a result of global warming due to GHG emissions. It causes changes in their migration schedules, resulting in deaths of a large number of butterflies due to non-availability of natural conditions for their survival. The human activities are significantly causing changes in natural systems. Species dependent on these natural systems for their survival cannot adapt to these changes at the same pace as these changes are occurring. Their endangerment is a strong signal of excessive human intervention in the nature. According to some scientists, we are in the middle of the sixth biggest mass extinction on earth. We have already lost half of the world's species in last forty years. There are ways to deal with it legally as well as by collective action. For example, the 'Endangered species act' signed by President Nixon in 1973 prevents humans from harming animals in any form, one of which also includes 'habitat loss'. But proving this linkage of habitat loss with human activities and extending it additionally to 'frightened' species such as Monarch butterflies would be a lengthy process. Instead, the habitat loss for Monarch butterflies can be helped to some extent by planting milkweeds, necessary for their survival, by people in distributed areas. This is a good example of the motto, 'Think global, act local'. The problem under discussion is spread over a large area of land. It's impossible for a person to single-handedly solve this problem alone. Also, merely worrying about Monarch butterflies will not stop the loss of habitat for them. Instead, if one can start action in their own community, by identifying lands where milkweeds can be grown, also identifying the scope for reduction in the use of herbicides. It will start showing visible results and also encourage action from more number of people. Additionally, there are many other species such as Loggerhead sea turtle or Polar bear which are threatened to be wiped out from the face of earth. And the threat to their survival, even if denied by many, comes from human activities. Fitting this situation in the context of morality requires understanding the relationship between humans and nature. In a previous essay, it was concluded that caring for nature is a moral obligation due to the fact that nature itself has enabled human being's evolution, as well as development as the most powerful species on earth. It can be followed by an argument that other species too have the right to evolve and develop in their natural way without any threat by humans. In addition, if a species is becoming extinct because of a reason that is not related to human activities, concerned efforts by humans will be considered 'supererogatory' and are appreciated in moral context. This is the first point from this topic that can be tied to environmental ethics. Another point from this discussion is about comparing the cost and benefits of doing or not doing something about Monarch butterflies. To make this point clear, consider example of a farmer who is worried about infection of pests in his farm and will not have a second thought about spraying pesticides. However, overuse of those chemicals can harm ecosystem that nurtures migrating butterfly species. He would have to bear the burden of managing controlled spraying of pesticides so as not to affect habitats nearby his farms. But he is fulfilling his moral duties of saving the habitat destruction for 'frightened' species. This action on this farmer's part is obligatory in a society where environmental consideration of human activities is a collective responsibility. Building such a society is the need of today's time. The third point that logically comes across the discussion on Monarch butterflies is that of extending our understanding of ethics to other species on earth as well. The human beings, as proven by several experiments, have an inner sense of morality when it comes to their responsibilities with other humans. The same sense of 'moral responsibility' can be applied to species which may not be a part of our 'actions', but are greatly affected by the 'consequences' of our actions. Hence, inclusion of a wider circle of species on earth in our moral code is important. 11/1/2017 0 Comments Ethics and environmental ethicsEthics, law, religion and etiquette are behavioral norms that I would personally arrange in the same order for their necessity to be followed. All four of them can be placed on a linear scale and one can argue that they are extensions of each other. Unless there is a belief of a higher entity determining their detailed rules, all of them are related to and derived from the worldly affairs.
Ethics constitute higher-level values that may not be practical to be followed in every task. Their importance is understood in the times of moral crisis. However, to ensure an ordered social behavior in day-to-day life, certain rules in the name of law can be followed with collective conscience. The nature of laws and the guidelines for their implementation are defined by legislative body. In addition to law, there are religion and etiquettes, which define certain social norms to be followed. Religion is believed to take commands or at least inspiration from a supernatural entity. Hence, the consequences for adherence or non-adherence to religious principles are supposed to be in the hand of the same supernatural entity. This is different from law where the imposed set of rules are monitored and violation of them is punished by the society itself. Etiquettes are the simple form of behavioral guidelines among the four and they are there to ensure polite behavior from everyone. Their enforcement in not as strict as compared to religion or law. I personally think that neither of the law, religion or etiquette are superior to morality when it comes to guiding human actions. This is because of the variable nature of these three entities across places and times. Whereas the moral or ethical principles are more likely to be common across all the contexts, as they are inherent to the human nature. Ethics surpass all three of them in being major factors those uphold the values that we have adopted to distinguish good from bad. Note: Although ethics and morals are used interchangeably in this answer, they are slightly different in their meaning. Ethics come from an outside source, like workplace; whereas the morals are inherent to one's character. Our understanding of morality is largely based on human-human interactions. It guides us to act in such a way as not to hurt other human beings. We follow it because we feel that harming other humans is not ethically acceptable. As an extension of this thought, some people also believe that eating or harming other animals is against the ethical principles. The environment that encompasses human as well as other animals is perceived as a different entity with this understanding of morality. It is considered more as a pool of resources rather than as a living being. However, logically our concerns should indeed extend to protecting environment as well. Our environmental concerns are primarily important because human activities affect environmental health. The degradation of environment affects ecosystems and hence animals dependent on them. Human beings are largely dependent on animals as well as plants for their living. Hence, it is not difficult to see that actions of a large population of human beings affect wellbeing of other living creatures including humans themselves. Environmental deterioration also makes the future population on earth vulnerable to natural disasters. In conclusion, I think that the environmental concerns force us to extend our understanding of morality and include the thoughts for other living creatures, as well as the future generations in our circle of concern. This is because the existing definitions of morality are better understood by majority of the population and institutions, however inefficient their implementation may be. This morality suggests having a sense of care and concern for someone, following precaution in one’s action so as not to harm others and ensuring equal distribution of resources and rights. The same sense of morality can make everyone care about environment too. For example, the knowledge of marine species dying due to plastic pollution in the oceans will lead to questions about morality in the use of plastics. This is possible because natural sense of morality is enough to instigate a feeling of concern regarding death. Extending it further to other species or environment in general, provides the much-needed broader sense of inclusiveness. The religious traditions are sometimes rooted in the culture that is followed or upheld from generation to generation. They tend to be dictated by someone having a higher authority on religious matters and any variation in them is frowned upon. However, their primary purpose is noble: To guide human actions by providing a moral reasoning for them. If one can make the traditions more personal instead of them coming from external source, the element of authority can be done away with. I think that it is possible for religious traditions to guide human actions in becoming more ethical and not practice any authority. This is likely to happen if religious traditions are inspired from the 'morality questions' faced by people in daily lives. The traditions will make a believer align her actions with the moral values those need to be inculcated. At the same time, the traditions should also be flexible to suit the local context. This way, the followers of a tradition will have a role in deciding their detailed nature. It will avoid their stubbornness and bring them closer to being one’s personal choice. Having said that, it is also important to consider that the religious or spiritual traditions play a major role in defining a sect or a culture. Going too much away from a tradition might be disapproved. This disapproval may not necessarily come from the authority dictating those traditions. It will instead be from the members of the society who collectively identify someone to be a part of their conglomerate. In my personal opinion, humankind is an equal member of the larger democratic ecosystem, we call ‘The Earth’. Our actions should not only be aligned with what is best for our species, but also with what is best for other species as well as for the environment that nurtures us. I strongly believe that one should not look at the environment merely as a warehouse of natural resources, but as a place that we need to preserve for future generations. I often ponder over the question, whether we need to think about the future generations while assessing the humankind’s relationship with the environment, as it may compromise with the present needs of the population. Looking at the time period for which earth has been in existence as compared to human beings, I conclude that the natural resources of the Earth should not be depleted by just a few generations of humans.
Humans were afraid of most of the natural events during their initial existence. At the same time, this made them respect the nature. However, the industrial revolution changed this relationship, put the humans in the role of master and made the nature a slave. This soon made the humans exploit nature as they deemed appropriate, resulting in a severe environmental damage. Some people feel negative about our past actions those lead to environmental degradation, whereas some demand shift in our approach. Collectively, we understand that we are responsible for this destruction and feel optimistic about taking action. Nevertheless, everyone acknowledges the presence of an environmental crisis that is the result of interventions and disruptions in the natural processes. The presence of environmental crisis can be seen in the data obtained by scientists that shows unusual behavior of natural phenomena that is too significant to be neglected as a random behavior of nature. I believe that the environmental crisis exists, because the destruction of nature because of human actions is not taken seriously at the institutional level. The pros about my position about existence of the environmental crisis are related to being conscious and active in solving it. With this position, when humans are already feeling responsible and concerned about the environmental crisis, one can start acting on this issue as soon as possible. With a curious attitude and a hope for solving this crisis, we can start changing our consumption behavior in such a way as to neutralize its harmful effects on the environment. The cons about my position are seen in terms of getting overwhelmed by the situation, which might be discouraging to some. For example, if the feeling of guilt and disconnectedness grows, then humans will be stuck in mourning about their action rather than consciously looking for remedy. Also, the apparent helplessness and hopelessness will make the people resort to inaction, which will stop the progress towards solving this problem. This is in contrast with the position where one continues building the environmentally benign practices without thinking about any environmental crisis as a reason to do so. Instead, here the motive for adopting 'green' practices would be gratitude towards nature. In conclusion, the humankind's relationship with the environment is based on interdependence and solidarity. Practicing power over nature is against our common ethics. |
AuthorVivek loves nature. He feels one with it. He wants to share his story. ArchivesCategories |