Is the Environment Worth Saving Anymore?

Although it is very difficult to define morality, I don't think it makes it any less significant. It is clearly very useful, and makes most people happy. I think morality has something to do with responsibility to a collective, arising from the realization that the individual is interdependent with its surroundings, and therefore the interactions involve compromise to ensure the survival of both individual and surroundings, without which neither will survive - although the argument that our environment doesn't need us to survive XD is fine and dandy as it is.

I think morality can dig real deep into our psychology and culture, and we can learn from the introspection of our own morality about how we feel about relationships, responsibility and commitments. We can tap into concepts like courtesy, respect, and honour to describe our emotional motivations for protecting the environment. And while satisfying your personal needs of courtesy, respect, and honour sounds pretty selfish - it's not as bad as it sounds :P Just as long as it goes both ways instead of in one direction. And I think that is also the liberal viewpoint of the world - one that we can all relate to, living in liberal democracies.

So. Protecting the environment can have a moral basis stemming from the recognition that humanity is interdependent with it, and the relationship is two way for both - i mean humanity - to survive. Everything else is a detail. Whether or not polar bears are worth saving depends on a good study of ecology - they really might not be worth saving, but it's important to find out whether or not they are first. And because these ideas of environmental protection resonate within our societies, there is no reason not to.

FreakyLocz14; said:

The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, that couldn't have happened, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a Velociraptor. Common knowledge.

twocows said:

I think environmentalism isn't really a matter of morality, at least not from the typical "save the planet" drivel you hear most people spout. Like I said earlier, it's a matter of self-preservation and, potentially, self-perfection. It's "right" to protect the environment because, even if we don't see the consequences today, at some point down the line our descendants will. And that much is black and white: either we take steps to preserve our interests as a species down the line, or we don't. There aren't really any other moral implications to it that I can think of.

Click to expand...

This.

i think that the universe is made for us too admire it in its beauty we shouldn't change them in any way.And that friend of you think that he is superior to others but he isn't we are equal to each other we have all the right to live(and i mean all the beings in the universe).I think that this man who want to destroy everything just need to open the eyes and see the beauty of all the things and beings and see how thin the universe balance is....a little mistake and the life as we know will end.He need to watch the ''DOCTOR WHO'' series maybe that will change his opinion and the perception about life

The earth is a beautiful place, why should we not protect it?

FreakyLocz14 said:

I reject your premise that humans have damaged the environment.

Click to expand...

I'm human, and I'm saying we've definitely had an impact on the environment; both in a negative and positive way.

If our species is meant to go extinct, then meddling with our fate is also unnatural. The same goes with polar bears. The dinosaurs are now extinct, and global warming caused by humans surely wasn't the cause.

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, every action has a reaction.

Whether we do something to preserve the earth or not, meddling with our fate is nearly impossible to avoid. I for one would like to preserve it as long as possible for future generations to live a life that we got the chance to live today. We certainly may not be able to keep the human race alive forever, but we can certainly try to keep it going for as long as we can.

We should save the environment, while we still have one!

What are we going to do in the year 2030 or 2040 when there is a severe climate crisis, Greenland sliding into the ocean or when New Zealand only one Island left.

There is only one way that I know that will fix all of the environments troubles:
STOP BURNING OIL AND COAL PEOPLE, YOU ARE KILLING THE EARTH.

I like the planet I'm on. I like Oxygen and clean water, and I don't like barren desolate voids like Mars. That alone should suffice in giving you impetus enough to conserve resources and pollute less. We can't just fly over to Mars for a vacation while the planet fixes itself.

The environment does change on its own, it's just that we won't be there to enjoy it XD There's nothing wrong about humans doing "unnatural" things. It's in our nature to preserve our own life, and we're doing it out of self-interest anyways. I see no problem with humanity doing whatever it takes to protect ourselves. It's part of the founding principles of the Western Liberal tradition, anyways.

And how would one take account for CO2 concentration changes if not human activity? You can't just reject evidence with the absence of evidence. At least have an alternate hypothesis.