Maybe there is enough land for landfills for generations to come. Maybe global warming is a simple weather pattern that will reverse in five years. Perhaps many of the chemicals we believe to be toxic may well be harmless. The destruction of forests may be insignificant and worth the benefits of development. Someday, clean and healthful water may be plentiful. And it may be that technology will be invented that will compensate for whatever damage has actually been done to the earth.

Should we be willing to bet the futures of our children and grandchildren on this optimistic scenario?

Environmental Gridlock.” Environmental Gridlock

 Environmental ethics is a branch of environmental philosophy, that studies the ethical relationship between human beings and the environment.  Environmental ethics has given a new dimension to the conservation of natural resources.  Environmental Ethics is the base of reasoning for, e.g., the following fields of action within society: environmental protection, animal protection, nature protection, animal rights, sustainability issues.

 Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?  Why should we continue to propagate our species, and life itself?  Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?

 What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?  Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the convenience of humanity?  How should we best use and conserve the space environment to secure and expand life?

 Resource Ethics: How do we legitimize the responsible management of scarce and deployable resources and environmental media (water, soil, air, climate, etc.)?  Animal Ethics: How do we legitimize the responsible treatment of animals, particularly those which can suffer from pain?

 Ethics of Nature Protection (= Ethics of Nature): How do we legitimize the responsible treatment with ‚collective biotic entities‘, for example: populations, species, ecosystems?

 Anthropocentrism views humans as the centre of ethical concern, while the environment is often seen as a usable resource, there for our personal exploitation.  Anthropocentrism justifies protecting the environment for human needs, whether it is in the form of aesthetic, economic, or social benefit. It attaches intrinsic value to humans solely, while the non-human world contains only instrumental value - a value as a means to some further ends

 Intrinsic value loosely means value in itself, that we contain value as ends in ourselves, regardless of whether or not we are also useful as a means to some other ends.

 Non-anthropocentrism takes a different approach to the environment, as it attaches intrinsic value to the nonhuman world, as well as the human world.  It claims that philosophers have tended to ethically devalue the nonhuman world in the past, but now there is a need to re-evaluate these views in order to take a morally just position towards the environment.

 Non-anthropocentrism endorses an environmental ethic that respects and values other living and nonliving entities as part of our moral community. There are many different non-anthropocentric positions, but three of the most predominant ones are eco- centrism, biocentrism, and deep ecology.

 Biocentrism claims that all individual biological species have moral worth, and we have a duty or obligation towards them.  It determines that our ethical obligation is towards individual entities, because each organism contains life, and this life should be respected because it has intrinsic value.

 Eco-centrism institutes a ’nature- centered’ environmental ethic, where humankind is not placed above or beyond the environment, but is embedded within it.  We need to acknowledge and appreciate our internal relatedness with the non-human world, and how our actions affect ecosystems and the biosphere’s functioning.  Eco-centrism cares less about individual animals or organisms, and more about the health and balance of ecological communities and ecosystems.

 Deep ecology calls for an understanding of the ecological world and claims we that should have a deeper interaction and ecological consciousness with the ecosphere and its inhabitants.  We only have a right to interfere with the nonhuman world to fulfill our vital needs and we need to alter our consumptive exploitative attitudes towards a new approach of self- fulfilment and self-realization.

 Barriers to Conversation - lookout for barriers that may prevent us from engaging in tough issues. Most of these barriers stem from our own inability to entertain new ideas, in other words, our mindsets.  Regulatory Mindset - Regulation lags the discovery of real problems, and regulation inevitably entails unforeseen consequences.  Cost/Benefit Mindset - when you focus strictly on costs and benefits, opportunities for innovation are missed.

 Constraint Mindset - This mindset argues that the main purpose of business is to create and sustain economic value, and everything else, from ethics to the environment to meaningful work, is best viewed as a side constraint. The business of business is purely business.  Sustainable Development Mindset - we wonder if “sustaining” the same opportunities for future generations is really our goal. Do we want them to have better choices? Framing the environment in this manner leads to the concept of “do more with less” and “constrain all growth.”