Recent years, environmental problems create a great threat for global community and all living beings on the Earth. Ecology consciousness often manifests itself in holistic medicine, self-awareness, nature awareness and even anti-urbanism and anti-industrialism. Ecologists argue that there is a need in a mass movement for social change and new environmental. Indeed the very idea of progress is now equated with the latter rather than with moral or spiritual advancement.
Ecologists and philosophers explain environmental problems from different stances but all of them come to conclusion that degradation of natural environmental is caused by human activities and exploitation of natural resources. A. Ecofeminists have developed various strategies for translating their utopian visions into practice. Two issues are at stake: women’s place in human society and human responsibility to nature. Male ownership of land resources leads to environmental degradation.
Ecological feminists believe that changes in power relations between men and women could improve our dealings with the environment. While not denying the part played by sexual difference in defining these divisions, socialist feminists emphasize gender-coded interpretations of biology as the source for women’s connections with nature. They maintain that gender socialization has been used in capitalist, patriarchal culture to further women’s oppression. Ecofeminuists criticize inappropriate use of land and animal resources by men.
Concerned that the dominant culture will simplify ecofeminism into a women’s back-to-nature movement, sharing affinities primarily with feminist spirituality, many ecofeminists emphasize their links with selected male domains, physics is a particularly useful foil in this effort. Critics (Kempton et al 1996) argue that Western culture has come to identify women with nature, while nature has become merely a field for the exercise of male power and control. For women to take on this responsibility means that they must deal honestly with their own tendencies to reduce nature to fit human needs, even when those needs come out of feminist agendas.
Ecofeminists assert that contemporary threats to the earth stem from the Western anthropocentric tradition. Ecofeminist leaders have stressed the need for the movement to include concerns outside the white middle class (Kempton et al 1996). Pluralist tradition beliefs that there are no hierarchies “among persons, between persons and the rest of the world” (Kempton et al 1996, p. 45). All citizens have the right to seek, and the opportunity of seeking, access to the political process in pursuing their own preferences.
Disputes about environmental issues should be settled within a planning and parliamentary framework which has majority support. Society is indeed composed of competing interest groups, but the process of accommodation to group interests is biased—towards particular groups who have ‘unfair’ (from a pluralist perspective) advantages. Hence, the resources of money, articulacy, education and time which rural preservationists possess may give them overwhelming advantage over the interests of those in lower socio-economic groups when it comes to decisions about where some environmentally damaging project may be place.
More generally, the interests of the state and the ruling economic elite closely coincide: indeed the personnel of big business and government often interchange. “Moral pluralism can be defined as the view that no single moral principle, or over-arching theory of what is right, can be appropriately applied in all ethically problematic situations” (Parker 1996, p. 31-32). Thus it is naive for environmental protest groups to appeal to supposedly neutral state authorities, ostensibly established to balance and reconcile conflicting interests.
For these authorities—planners and bureaucrats—cannot act as environmental managers in a way which is free from the constraints of a social-economic structure that is designed to further the interests of capital (Lowe, 2005). Environmental pragmatism states “environmental ethics can be seen as continuous with other areas of ethics, a distinct but integral part of value inquiry in general” (Parket 1996, p. 33). Critics admit that environmental pragmatism is not necessarily bad for the environment: pragmatism and human-centeredness are very good motivations for caring for nature.
Long-term planning for sustainable economic gain aims to maximize energy production, economic yields and environmental quality through ecosystems modeling, prediction and manipulation. Such manipulation, with its associated ecosystems view of the society-nature relationship, sits nicely with the aspirations of a more ‘developed’ capitalism: one which has appreciated that continued unregulated mining of resources produces the contradiction of economics which destroy their own resource base.
The current softening of the Christian message of domination into one of stewardship, to ‘garden’ the world and improve it for God, also lends itself well to this phase of capitalism. These examples show that in the environmental pragmatism is often, associated with an outlook that has a lack of concern for the means used to achieve an end, and for the advocacy of rather narrow ends–what works or succeeds. “For the pragmatist, the environment is above all not something “out there,” somehow separate from us, standing ready to be used up or preserved as we deem necessary” (Parker 1996, p. 29).
It is often opposed to a theoretical perspective, and thus identified with short-sighted approaches. Thought, especially the method of inquiry, is seen as an instrument, as a means for adapting both organisms and societies to changing environments. In planning, as contrasted with science or art, the aim of thought is to bring about changes in the social or natural environment. The idea that planning, if properly internalized and institutionalized, can become the means for social evolution was taken up in the late 1960s and early 1970s by a group of planning theorists, collectively known as social learning theorists.
Dewey goes back beyond human experience, and argues for a concept of art and esthetic enjoyment that is grounded in the experience of organic life, of “the live creature” as it interacts with it environment. The live creature, Dewey reminds us, in sometimes small and sometimes significant ways, is constantly falling out of step with its environment. B. I suppose that every person should “put environmental awareness into action” trying to protect natural environment from hazardous effects of human activities.
There is no person who ought not to be concerned with the preservation of natural goodness, if only because others undeniably do find values there. Wild nature according to this account, serves only as an occasion of value; it triggers dormant human potential. Even such naturalists need wild nature for the triggering of these values, and they will have to reckon with why nature has this capacity to occasion value, being necessary if insufficient for it. The sensitive naturalist is again and again surprised by nature, being converted to its values and delighted by it just because he or she has gone beyond previous, narrowly human values.
Humans should not forget that all our human actions are unnatural. According to pragmatic point of view, I support innovative public policy making initiatives which aimed to reduce harmful effects of human activities on the environment. Following Broda-Bahm (1999): “the question is whether the benefits of increased attention for environmental issues to be gained through association with security are worth the harms caused by imprecision and negative connotation and effect” (p. 159). My environmental values include protection of land and forests, water resources and air.
According to Parker (1996) “Wolves, spotted owls, and old growth forests are unable to enter the ethics debate except through their human spokespersons, and that is perhaps regrettable” (p. 33). For this reason, I consider animals and plants as the main value. The human species has come into evolutionary nature lately and yet dramatically and with such upset that we are driven to ask whether persons are some sort of anomaly, literally apart from the laws that have hitherto regulated and otherwise still regulate natural events (Kempton et al 1996).
C. My responsibility is to reduce harmful impact of modern technologies and materials on the natural environment. Also, I suppose that every person is responsible for monitoring and control of waste management and pollution issues in his region. All citizens should take an active part in public policy making which ensures pollution control and effective management of natural resources. To follow nature means to choose a route of submission to nature that utilizes natural laws for our well-being.
We can no more escape from nature than we can from human nature, than the mind can from the body, but we can bring all these increasingly under our deliberative control. Technology does not release us from natural dependencies; it only shifts the location and character of these, releasing us from some dependencies while immediately establishing new ones. Humans, insiders, are not spared environmental pressures, yet, in the full context, human integrity is supported by and rises from transaction with the world and therefore requires a corresponding dignity in the world partner (Papadakis, 2000).
My responsibility is to use environmentally friendly technologies like solar and wind energy, hydrogen cars and environmentally friendly materials. Consumers and marketers are responsible to control quality of products and boycott environmentally harmful goods and package. For instance, the soda pop consumed on the trail is soon gone, the aluminum tab tossed there lasts nearly a century. It might have been manufactured affixed to the can, and the can packed out and recycled by deposit or buy-back incentives (Kempton et al 1996).
Owing both to the nature of business in our industrial society and to the nature of environmental interactions, complications arise that require us to make ethical judgments in less familiar and more demanding contexts than ethicists sometimes face. Pollution depends on how much one can get past current regulations. Environmental quality, personal well-being, rewarding relationships, creativity, art and sheer enjoyment are part of quality of life. The prime need is for each individual to change attitudes, values and lifestyles to emphasize respect for and peaceful cooperation with nature.