Learning Unit 2: Human Environment

Disclaimer Please note that the following PowerPoint representation DOES NOT replace the official Study Material. The purpose of this additional resource is to support, assist and enrich your learning experience

Learning Outcomes Compare the various environmental schools of thought Evaluate the reasons for the differences between the "rich North" and the "poor South" Analyse why some environmental schools of thought are classified as technocentric and others as ecocentric

Human-induced imbalances Pages 35-37 in Middleton Urban and rural areas develop different economically in both the North and the South Most rural people in the South do not have access to economic power Corruption and centralized control over finances means that rural populations do not have control over resources and how they are managed. Poor and marginalized groups in the South do not have ownership of land and are dependent on ‘common property resources’ When common resources are used, there is a danger of overexploiting them – the tragedy of the commons. Rural people living in chronic poverty tend to live in areas with low agricultural or resource potential The poor and disadvantaged, are both the victims and the agents of environmental degradation.

Human-induced imbalances The poor, and in particular, women, may only have access to environmentally sensitive areas or low-quality resources. They tend to suffer from declines in productivity due to soil erosion and deforestation. Poverty may also mean that they do not have another option but to exploit the resources available to them. Environmental degradation can become a positive feedback mechanism in the poverty-environment relationship

Pages 31-32 and 54 in Middleton Tragedy of the commons Pages 31-32 and 54 in Middleton “The commons” refers to the resources that are shared by all of humanity and do not belong to individuals or sovereign states. The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the fact that when no regulations exist or where regulations cannot be implemented, no one will take care of a particular resource and only uses the resources for their own benefit until the resource is depleted or severely damaged. The lack of economic value (price tag) on resources such as the air, oceans and fisheries also leads to their depletion.

Environmental schools of thought Pages 31-32 and 54 in Middleton Technocentric Ecocentric Two main opposing perspectives/attitudes towards human technology and its ability to affect, control and protect the environment

Technocentric Views humans as separate from, and superior to, nature Technology and economics will provide the answers to environmental problems Cornucopian worldview: any problems can easily be solved by human ingenuity and the economy. There are no limits to economic growth Cornucopians argue that resources are there to be used for economic growth and technology will provide substitutes when resources are depleted

Technocentric Human dominance over nature Low priority given to ecosystem functions and resource depletion The natural environment is a resource for human use Material and economic growth for increasing human populations Belief in ample reserves of resources High technological progress and solutions Examples: Consumerism and growth in consumption

Ecocentrism Deep ecologists argue for minimal use of resources, preservation of resources and the intrinsic value of natural regardless of human perceptions Humans are subject to nature, rather than in control of it All nature has intrinsic worth: all species are equal Earth’s resources are limited Human interaction with the natural world should not impair the functioning of natural biological processes

Ecocentrism Low impact technology and self-reliance is more desirable than technological control of nature Appropriate technology and non-dominating science Fundamental changes are needed along with the redistribution and decentralization of power Simple material needs: goal of self-realization