Ethical Viewpoints Used to Justify Various Approaches to Natural Resource Management - Coursework Example

NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: UNTI NAME: UNIT CODE: TOPIC: ETHICAL VIEWPOINTS USED TO JUSTIFY VARIOUS APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. INSTRUCTOR: INSTITUTION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Over the past couple of years, environmental issues have been placed at the hearts of world issues. Whereas in the past only a few paid attention to environmental matters, more and more have realised the sheer danger in neglecting the environment. This is primarily because of the ravages of global warming and accompanying damages to the environment such as air pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, and so on. As a result, natural resource management is no longer seen as a mere luxury but an area of grave necessity. “Natural resource management broadly refers to the management of natural resources such as land, soil, water, animals, and plants with a focus on this how management affects the quality of life for both present and future generations,” (Wikipedia, 2009). More specifically, it is the planning and active manipulation of ecosystems and processes for human benefit. In short, human beings are the main stake holders therefore resources are to be maintained for human beings and because of human beings. Natural resource management is therefore necessary for the stability and survival of the environment and all governments of the world should actively implement NRM programs. Nevertheless, regardless of the obvious benefits of natural resource management, there are varying approaches towards its implementation. There are several questions associated with environmental ethics that seek to be answered. One such question is “What obligations do humans have towards non- humans?” or “Do these obligations vary from environment to environment?” These are areas that have to be addressed if natural resource management is to be successful and accepted in all parts of the world. The single greatest criticism is that most approaches serve human interest first with apparent disregard for the environment. Most stakeholders in environmental issues such as the government and business people disregard environmental ethics for selfish reasons. There are three main environmental ethics that form the basis of the varied approaches to natural resource management: The developmental ethic (based on human individualism and the need for progress); the preservation ethic (based on the belief that nature has intrinsic value and thus should be preserved); and the conservation ethic (stresses the need for balance between resource utilisation and its availability) (Smith, 2002). Many stakeholders justify their approaches on the basis of one of the three types. The following discussion will therefore analyse some of the ethical viewpoints used in the justification of these approaches to natural resource management, lying special emphasis to trees as a natural resource (deforestation and afforestation). ETHICAL VIEWPOINTS USED TO JUSTIFY VARIOUS APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT One ethical viewpoint that justifies various approaches is anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism attaches primary importance to human interests and stems from the developmental ethic. With regards to the environment, “anthropocentric ethics is an approach that evaluates environmental issues on the basis of how they affect human needs,” (Ray and McGandy, 2003). This view is divided into two main parts: consequential ethics and deontological ethics. Consequential ethics implies that human actions are valued according to their consequences upon other humans while deontological ethics deals mainly with rights and duties that are carried by ethical subjects or by those affected by intended actions. Common to both is the premise that human beings are superior to animals and non-living entities. The anthropocentric view thus approaches natural resource management on the basis that human interests should be served over and above those of other resources. Therefore, with regards to a natural resource such as trees/ forests, anthropocentrism proposes the express utilisation of the same as long as there is demand for it. In the event that this indiscriminate deforestation greatly depletes the number of trees, all that humans have to do is move to another place where there are other trees and resume the deforestation there. The main line of thinking is that a tree as a resource is very important for industrial growth/ human usage and thus should be exploited to cater for the various needs of human beings (for paper, furniture, construction, and so on). In any case, proponents of anthropocentrism often argue, trees will always grow back with proper afforestation. Anthropocentrism has been heavily criticized for its disregard of the rest of the natural world. An opposing view is biocentrism which posits that non- humans are also carriers of moral value and that the biotic community is a central concern in natural resources management. It thus proposes a holistic approach to management whereby conservation of natural resources is a balance between human and environmental interests (a conservation ethic). To improve on their approach, modern anthropocentrists promote a notion of “enlightened self-interest” whereby humans view themselves as part of the natural world and pay sufficient attention to scientific theories, sound metaphysics, moral ideals and aesthetic values (Ray and McGandy, 2003). This self-interest leads to respect for the environment thereby preventing its destruction and degradation. Eco centrism is yet another viewpoint. It refers to any philosophy that is “ecology- centred” and that puts an emphasis on ecological “wholes”; moving away from individual animals and plants (Smillie. 2009). Ecological systems are thus seen as wholes. There are two schools of thought in eco centrism. The first is that it is wrong to destroy any living thing because the sphere of ultimate value should be extended from just the animal world to the animate world to encompass things like trees and plants (Barry and Frankland, p. 170). The second school of eco centric thought is more controversial and has come under heavy criticism. According to Barry and Frankland (2002, p. 170), this view posits that: All other things being equal, it is wrong to despoil or destroy all natural objects. The idea is that the sphere of ultimate value should be extended beyond the animal world to include inanimate- but naturally occurring- objects such as mountains, streams, rocks and so forth and the like. It asserts that it is not necessarily wrong to destroy natural objects or even living things; it is only wrong if it does damage to the whole biosphere. The stability of individual species is not a requisite for the survival of the biosphere as a whole and thus should not be of concern in environmental issues. Environmental changes such as climate change should only be prevented if they put the entire biosphere in danger. Thus, with regards to deforestation, the ethical justification is that as long as it is done in moderation, it should be encouraged. Indeed, there is insufficient evidence to link deforestation to climate change thus it can not be seen as having a major effect on the biosphere as a whole. An individual tree is not more important than the ecosystem as long as the entire forest is not destroyed. There is very little harm in felling that one tree as long as the tree will be used for a good purpose and will eventually be replaced by another one. Deep ecology is yet another viewpoint that has been justified by its proponents. It is founded on beliefs concerning the intrinsic value of nature; the application of ecological principles to human moral evaluations and actions; and the critique of technology and industrial materialism (Ray and McGandy, 2003). “Deep” refers to the level at which human values and purposes are questioned. The goal of deep ecology is to clarify value priorities when establishing policies and practices. The opposing view, shallow ecology, seeks to avoid resource depletion and excess pollution, whereas deep ecology calls for drastic fundamental shifts in perception, lifestyles and values. Deep ecology seeks to challenge religions to act in response to the concerns of environmentalists thereby encouraging an interconnection between philosophical and religious viewpoints; public policy and ethics; as well as scientific and empathetic studies of nature (Ray and McGandy, 2003). This viewpoint has been criticized for not dealing with political and economic injustices and for the fact that it places greater emphasis on non- human species than on humans. With regards to trees, proponents of deep ecology claim to be able to “feel” trees (they are able to compassionately connect to trees on a deeper level) and thus prefer afforestation as a natural resource management practice. This is because trees are more important than humans and thus they’re proper conservation should be adhered to. CONCLUSION It is evident that despite the fact that many practices undertaken by stakeholders are contrary to natural resource management ethics, various view points will always be put forth to serve often selfish human interests. These viewpoints are likewise contradicted by other opinions which lean more towards the natural world and the ecosystem as a whole. The three opposing environmental ethics (the developmental, preservation and conservation ethics) are all ethics that form the basis for various approaches to natural resource management and all have proponents. Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and biocentrism among others are all divergent viewpoints that need to be harmonised so that both human and environmental interests are to be met satisfactorily. In a nutshell therefore, the single greatest difficulty for natural resource managers in not achieving the desired results is selfish human interests which are hard to just wish away. To avoid this, successful management of natural resources, restoration and conservation must coordinate complex human dynamics and interests with time-dependent ecosystem processes. Management actions must deal with the processes of conservation and restoration on an appropriate scale and then be maintained for an extended period with appropriate mid-course corrections so that the ecological objectives can be met (Richardson, 2008). Successful management implies continuous learning and if this is done, we shall be one step closer towards the development of a healthy environment; both now and in the future. REFERENCES Abruzzi, Ray and McGandy, Michael J Ed. (2003). Anthropocentrism. Encyclopaedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan-Thomson Gale. Accesses on 10th March, 2009 from http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/anthropocentrism Abruzzi, Ray and McGandy, Michael J Ed. (2003). Deep ecology. Encyclopaedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan-Thomson Gale. Accesses on 10th March, 2009 http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/deep-ecology Barry, John and Frankland, Gene. (2002). International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. London: Routledge Publishers. Holzman, B. A. (2007). Natural Resource Management and Environmental History. Accessed on 10th March, 2009 from http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/GEOG%20657/env%20history%20lecture.pdf Richardson, R. H. (2008). Natural Resource Management: Ecology, Conservation and Restoration – in Practice. Austin: The University of Texas. Smillie, Mark. (2009). Environmental Ethics. Carroll College; Helena, MT. Accessed on 10th March 2009 from http://web.carroll.edu/~msmillie/envethics/ecocentric.htm Smith, Enger. (2002) Environmental Science: A Study of Interrelationships. Tenth Edition. New York: McGraw- Hill Company. Wikipedia. (2009). Natural resource management. Accessed on 10th March 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resource_management Read More