The environment of our planet is a subject that divides opinion in all communities.

Primarily, I believe this disagreement is to do with a form risk-reward ratio. The risk posed to our planet by human use of natural resources, versus the reward from using them. To put this in perspective, we can look at oil consumption, one of the most hotly debated topics in not just environmental issues, but in global and national politics. In 2009, the United States alone was estimated to be consuming 18,690,000 barrels (42 US gallons) of oil in a single day1. On the one hand, we could point out just how crucial oil is to human living standards. From the oil refineries comes fuel for automobiles and power stations, as well as plastics. If the oil were to suddenly stop, the ramifications would be natuarally disastrous. However, on the other hand we can observe the negative effects of this use of natural resources, including release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and ecological damage to areas where oil is harvested and refined, and that our dependence is self inflicted by our reluctance to use alternatives. However, if the environment was purely a situation of numbers, it would be easily solvable as any equation. The fact is that contrary to being a fringe issue, the environment is inevitably linked into human prosperity, happiness and at the roots human survival. So therefore, this begs the questions, who is right, how should we treat the environment? I believe there are three key ethical approaches to the treatment of the environment. The first is the Dominant approach. The second, is the Symbiotic approach. The third has only really emerged in the last decade, and I will call it the Architectural approach and will discuss it later in this essay. The Dominant approach to environmental ethics would seem to be the widely held, if not that, the most widely practiced view on how to treat the environment. Its roots go back through the industrial revolutions in the Western world and could be said goes back to a Bible verse, Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth2. From reading this we can glimpse into the mindset of someone such as a 19th Century Industrialist, someone who could be seen as an forerunner to the modern industrial world: God created the earth and specifically placed man as its ruler. Its resources, forests, are all at the command of humanity. The exploitation of nature is something divinely sanctioned and perfectly acceptable. Of course, the inclusion of God as a justification in the present is something much rarer than it was at the time of the industrial revolution. More often used nowadays is a more Utilitarian approach. This was touched on before in the introduction, and is a recurring theme when dealing with the environment and industry. For instance, many attempts were made in the 1990s to stop logging in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, for fear of harming an endangered species of owl and other animals. But undeniably, growth of an industry can bring great benefit to humans, jobs, prosperity, all in the pursuit of happiness, the ultimate Utilitarian goal. The owl on the other hand, is of no practical use and is therefore an acceptable price in order to maximise the greatest good for the greatest
1 2

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption The Bible, King James Version, Book of Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 26

number3. This makes the Utilitarian view the primary focus of the Dominant approach, surmising in essence that in order to maintain human civilisation and keep a privileged position over the Earth, there are acceptable prices to pay. One of the most obvious critiques of the Dominant approach is that it could be seen to be simply excusing the injustice and bad ethics of industry. We could say that far from being Utilitarian, the Dominant approach is more one of Anarchism, promoting a false belief that humanity can take what it wants from the Earth with no consequences. Another criticism lies at its religious roots, arguing that far from promoting sheer dominion, the Bible promotes stewardship: The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land4. A verse such as that indicates quite clearly that the Earth is not humanitys possession. It is given by the grace of God and must be taken care of appropriately, and exploiting the earths resources and sacrificing its species as if they were resources is fundamentally contrary to divine command. Also, it exposes as critical flaw of Utilitarianism when applied in the short term to environmental issues, in that it is simply too Anthropocentric. Its concern is ensuring human well being with little regard to welfare other living creatures, which is in itself a complex ethical issue with no clear answer. This was addressed by the creator of Preference Utilitarianism, Peter Singer. He argues that considering animals without interests or morally irrelevant is analogous to sexism or racism, coining the term speciesism. According to Singer, animals can suffer, they can feel and express pain, therefore they seek as humans do, to avoid pain, and seek pleasure5. From this perspective, it could be argued that seeking Utilitarianism as a justification for dominance is fundamentally wrong. This leads into the second approach, that of Symbiotic relationship. Fundamentally, it is a belief that humans are a part of the ecosystem, and are therefore subject to the same dependencies as other organisms. Referring back to the example of logging, the Symbiotic approach would completely reject the notion that continued logging would be something beneficial. It is well established science that all natural things are interconnected, as demonstrated by the predator-prey model. A sudden decrease in predators leads to an overpopulation of prey, eventually depleting food and leading to starvation of prey until balance is restored. Similarly, a decrease in prey leads to predator overpopulation and much the same result. This is the other side of the Utilitarian argument, that in the long run diminishing a species is negative for the environment and by extension humanity as they are in fact a part of the environment.

Des Jardins, Joseph R., 1996, Environmental Ethics, An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy, 1 ed., Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publishing Company 4 The Bible, King James Version, Book of Leviticus, Chapter 5, Verses 23-24 5 st Des Jardins, Joseph R., 1996, Environmental Ethics, An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy, 1 ed., Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publishing Company

st

However, some see this approach as to Athropocentric, trying to find the ideal for humans and humans alone. Looking again at Singers criticism of Utilitarian Ethics, we could say that living creatures seek the same as we do, we simply interpret it differently, as pleasure and pain. All living organisms try to fill their needs and avoid negative factors. Even plant life automatically as a matter of biology strives to find sunlight in the direction it grows, as its roots will avoid acidic soil and grow down to where enough water can be absorbed. One might say that what if seeds are sown in a field with much too acidic soil for growth? The seeds would simply not become plants. But then it could be said back, that problem is the equivalent of being born into a room with no oxygen. The philosophical epitome of this idea is laid out in the philosophy of Deep Ecology. According to this theory, all things on the Earth have an intrinsic value, they are ends in themselves, rather than a means to an end because like us, they seek needs and avoid negative factors. We could therefore say that Deep ecology and therefore the Symbiotic approach are Deontological or Kantian in nature, due to the emphasis that the environment be treated as a means to an end, but something with the same intrinsic value as a human6. However, the Symbiotic relationship suffers a crucial flaw. It is simply not practical. Firstly, there are just things that are too hard for human civilization to swallow, such as voluntarily decreasing the overall human population. Human do not naturally agree, the likelyhood of humanity as a whole adopting the Deep Ecology mantra is next to none at present. This presents a key problem for Deep Ecology. One of Naess key tenants was that humanitys entire worldview should change. Such an undertaking would take many generations, and with the environmental problems as they are, to undertake massive social change on this scale would be a futile gesture. So, I believe that it becomes necessary to introduce a middle ground, of sorts. Enter the Architectural approach. The approach can best be typified by its key writer, Stewart Brand, who is a self-proclaimed Ecopragmatist: We are as Gods and HAVE to get good at it7. In that single quote we can already find a degree of reconciliation. Humanity has moved from the stone to the sculptor, a process which began as early as the discovery of fire. But, benevolence and pragmatism are key. Humans are selfish, this is unlikely to change. Therefore, human nature must be the proverbial clay with which to work. Instead of mass ideological shift and scaling back of human civilization, as Deep Ecology stipulates, Brand emphasises that nature can be reconciled with human civilisation, through things such as Geoengineering, changing the planet itself, we can preserve the environment. I believe that this is how humans should treat the environment, as benevolent architects. We should shape

Des Jardins, Joseph R., 1996, Environmental Ethics, An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy, 1 ed., Belmont, California, USA, Wadsworth Publishing Company 7 st Brand, Stewart, 2009, Whole Earth Discipline, 1 ed., USA, The Viking Press (Part of Penguin Group USA)

st

the world as according to our needs, but always be mindful of the consequences and strive to shape a world in which a healthy environment and human civilisation can exist side by side.