Surely, no other creature on the planet thinks so much about the environment as humans do. We have studied nature, taken pictures from every angle, done the surveys, mapped geographies, drew patterns and graphs and even looked for alternate resources in the outer space. Other creatures live in a habitat, migrate once in a while at most and contribute to the ecosystem in their own way. Man, on the other hand, is clearly above and beyond the scope of all biological ecosystems out there in the universe. In fact, in the past few centuries, he had been guilty of modifying, even destructing several eco-systems on the face of the earth. As Aristotle (1948) has said, “Nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man.”
Man’s relationship with nature has so far been anthropocentric, whether it is in construction or destruction. The raise of environmental ethics as a philosophical discussion took a serious turn in the 1960s when population explosion posed a serious threat to the life-support systems of the planet (Ehrlich, 1968). Now, environmentalism is the cause of the twenty-first century and for the first time in human history, global movements are emerging in order to cut down the carbon footprints worldwide. But the question still remains. Is it in the interest of other life forms around us or to safeguard our own well-being that humans embark on the path of environmentalism? How do human beings define environmentalism? What responsibility or higher ethical value do they see in contributing to the well-being of nature? Does human being, as a species, have the moral responsibility towards preventing other species from extinction, let alone the fact that they are directly or indirectly responsible for those species to reach the verge of extinction in the first place?
The evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins (1989), the evolutionary biologist gives a genetic perspective for the evolution of human beings. He says that one of the reasons for humans to evolve in the way that they did is higher levels of communication. He calls each unit of cultural communication, a meme, be it a tune, a phrase, a ritual or technological device that gets replicated and transmitted from human to human like a virus in the brain. According to Dawkins, the evolution of memes that happened alongside human evolution was a direct cause for the way a human brain evolved. For example, because a meme, say a short tune, was replicated enough times in a civilization of pre-historic men, their genes evolved in order to accommodate a longer tune in the vocal cords in the coming generations. Culture and communication were probably responsible for many of the physical aspects of human being, brains that can process mathematical formulae, smooth, almost hair-less skin that appeals to man’s aesthetic sense, etc.
The memetic theory might explain why other animals haven’t evolved alongside man or rather haven’t reached that stage of exponential growth of brain capability just yet. But the fact remains that, the limitless communication capability makes man the most powerful species on planet. As an intelligent species that displays altruism (individually, if not collectively) we should get over the speciesism of the past that made us evolve alone. In a philosophical perspective, what could be the ultimate purpose for the superiority of human being, if our progress on the evolutionary path is always alone? With the advances made in genetic science and other related studies on other life forms, our goal should be to ensure the well-being of other life forms and the environment in order to pave way for the evolution of the rest of the species as well as the birth of newer species.
Sustenance. The UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) assesses that around 1.6 million people around the world depend directly on forests for their day to day livelihood (Munang, et al. 2011). And that is the latest figure. The trend of exploitation continues around the globe, while at the same time, new incentives are being taken up to develop sustainable economies through natural means. As a race, humans have exhibited, from times immemorial, the trend of exploiting or even emptying the resources in a given space and then looking for new opportunities in far off lands by way of explorations. When tribals do it, it is called encroachment, while corporations or imperial powers call it expansion. Whatever the reason is, this nature of our species must be eliminated in order to really make a change in the environment. Giving space for individual beliefs and practices among ourselves might just be the root to allowing other species with completely different roles in the ecosystem to sustain.
Philosophical views. Various parts of the world have various views of the environment. While some schools of philosophy define environment as immediate surroundings and them alone, others adopt a universal sense much like the modern environmentalists. Asian philosophies in particular advocate that a man should be completely aware of his surroundings through the body in order to make any sense of the rest of the world. In Hinduism, several environmental elements like trees, rivers, mountains and even stones are worshipped as deities for their sublime qualities. The four constituents, air, water, earth and fire which make up all matter in the world are given due importance in all major religions in the world.
Modern environmentalism calls for sustainable usage of nature in agriculture, forest trade, etc., welfare of animals that includes better treatment and protection of domestic animals, wildlife conservation, species conservation, eco-system management, recycling and reusing, reduction of carbon foot print and green-house gases, public awareness, activism and so on. The practices have evolved as a result of the rejection of anthropocentric stance taken by the traditional philosophies. It is not about man at all, the cause for environment, but a systematic approach in order to make right the wrongs done by our ancestors. The ultimate goal is not to have a better world for human beings alone, but a place where other species can thrive and evolve without our constant interferences. Recent advances in conservation biology and ecosystem management have shown that more than treating nature and environment as a community, looking at it with love and respect allows us to nurture its wellbeing and actually making better habitats for several species to co-exist in (Brennan, Lo, 2002).
Environmentalism is not just a philosophy or a science or a necessity. It is a way of life. Contributing back to the earth we walk on and the air we breathe, the food we consume is a logical and ethical extension to the human being, in fact, a mark of the existence of his soul. It is not the responsibility of an individual per se, but a cause strong enough to invoke collective responsibility from the population world over.
Reference list
Aristotle. 1948. Politics. Translated by E. Barker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrlich, P. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine.
Dawkins, R. 1989. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Munang, R. et al. 2011. Sustaining forests: Investing in our common future. UNEP Policy Series- Ecosystem management. [online] Available at:
Brennan, A and Lo, Y. 2002. Environmental Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). [online] Available at:
