Introduction to the Issue

Climate change. Deforestation. Ocean Acidification. I could go on forever if I had to list every environmental issue caused by human existence, a morbid fact that few ever mull over.

Take plastic, for example: humans produce over 430 million tons of plastic annually which translates to over 1 million tons of plastic being produced each day. Some of the consequences of plastic creation and waIntroduction to the Issue

Climate change. Deforestation. Ocean Acidification. I could go on forever if I had to list every environmental issue caused by human existence, a morbid fact that few ever mull over.

Take plastic, for example: humans produce over 430 million tons of plastic annually which translates to over 1 million tons of plastic being produced each day. Some of the consequences of plastic creation and waste in the environment include air pollution, microplastic contamination/ingestion by humans as well as wildlife, and habitat destruction. Despite these devastating impacts, many of my peers continue to buy coffee served in plastic cups every single day, only to toss them in the trash without a second thought.

The fact that their usage of plastic actively harms the environment has a secondary importance to them in the face of comfort, convenience, and of course, other immediate priorities such as academics. This raises an important question: will current environmental education on issues such as plastic pollution be enough to effectively combat these challenges? I think not.

Anthropocentrism

Photo by Jan Kopřiva on Unsplash

The everyday disregard for the environment is not just an individual flaw, but a reflection of a broader societal system that rewards convenience over ecological responsibility. It is not just a matter of a mere plastic cup filled with coffee or another drink, but the belief that places human desires above the Earth’s health in every instance: anthropocentrism. Formally defined, anthropocentrism is the ethical belief that only humans hold intrinsic value.

From the dawn of human civilization, particularly following the Neolithic Revolution, humans' relationship with nature altered as they learned to "tame" it. This shift is evident in practices like the domestication of animals for food and clothing, as well as the transformation of land for agricultural purposes.

As time progressed, these changes were reflected in art and oral traditions, further embedding the human-centric worldview into culture. Fast forward to today, and despite our greater understanding of the environmental consequences of our actions, people, corporations, and even governments continue to contribute to the destruction of the natural world.

In recent years, the United States government has made attempts at mitigating pressing environmental issues such as plastic production/clean-up, many of which are successful, but are not enough. Continuing on the plastic pollution, consider the National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution created by the EPA. While many of the objectives presented could be impactful, they remain in the realm of what could be and are not present.

The fact of the matter is, that local-level, state-level, and even federal-level governments care far too little about the environment to take a firm stance. Again, the environment takes secondary importance to human affairs e.g. the economy.

If we continue to place nature as a secondary importance, as a "you choose to care about the environment", as a "that's for the vegans", then the Earth as we know it could fade into oblivion and be replaced with a hostility that would cause numerous species to suffer indefinitely.

Take the Quiz: What Candle Scent Matches Your Overall Aesthetic?

Halloween is just around the corner. It's time to light that candle. Take this quiz and find out what candle scent suits you best.

The Universal Nature of Oppression

To move away from a mindset that is deeply ingrained in the human experience, is difficult, to say the least.

However, a similar parallel which may be easier to understand for those newer to this idea, can be seen as one moves from intraspecies to interspecies. Humans exercise dominant control of their environment which includes species of animals and plants, similarly, they often exercise dominant control over marginalized groups of people based on factors such as race, gender, and class.

Here oppression is perpetuated in that there is a hierarchy with a dominant party and a lesser party, with the dominant party often finding ways to continually legitimize its control and subsequently its superiority. Some forms of these controls include discriminatory language, limitation of education and career opportunities, and exclusion in social spaces, among others.

The way control is exercised can be overt, through practices such as overfishing or the Elephant Ivory trade, as well as covert, through animalistic language and the commodification of nature at large into literary devices, where humans are again the ones giving the environment value. While not explicit, the assumption is clear: humans are superior and they can do as they please due to their superiority, despite actively harming other parties involved who cannot even give consent or retaliate based on these actions.

Despite the moral dilemmas of anthropocentrism, many individuals continue to fight in its favor, albeit an “enlightened” version of it, citing reasons such as greater levels of intelligence and competing interests as defense. However, humans have a dependent relationship with the Earth, that is we rely on the Earth for all of our needs including fresh water, food, shelter, etc. If we are to dismiss the Earth as not having any value we are saying that our needs, which again, the Earth provides have no value when that is not true as without these needs we, as a species, would perish.

Additionally, when considering nature as an entity, we must ask, would we be willing to deface a person every day of their life through pollution, through swathes of dead animals turning up in algal blooms, or caging animals for entertainment? Such acts would be considered human rights violations, so why not the same for nature? Where are the nature’s rights violations?

Post-Humanism

But at the same time, what comes after shedding anthropocentrism?

If humans are not the only creatures with intrinsic value, how far should we go in understanding who has value?

Is life the only thing worth giving intrinsic value to?

I argue, no. Living organisms require an environment to thrive in, hence their environment has value. However, the ability to support life is not the only facet that gives non-living things value, they should have value in and of themselves as they are important to the Earth as a whole when considering the Earth as an entity; this concept is known as ecocentricism.

While it may be challenging at first to conceive of the equality of all entities within the ecosphere, particularly when considering non-sentient beings such as rocks, rivers, or even air, the concept of intrinsic value provides a moral basis for their protection. After all, just as we would not condone the violation of human rights or the rights of animals, we must recognize that the destruction of ecosystems or natural habitats harms the integrity of the Earth itself.

In recognizing this, humans are called to reject their role as rulers of the Earth, and instead embrace their role as part of an interconnected web of life on Earth.

Nature's Rights

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

In embracing our interconnected relationship with the environment, we must be willing to usher in an age of egalitarianism, the likes of which has never been seen before.

For example, human beings have the right to defend themselves in court and to rightfully gain compensation under the law, however, nature has no equivalent.

While environmental law offers some protections for nature, such as those found in the Endangered Species Act, land is often viewed in a humanist context. For example, when someone's land is ruined in any way shape, or form, it is not the land that is compensated for the harm to its ecosystems. Instead, only the landowners are compensated.

In response to this violation of nature's autonomy, countries such as Educator have begun to champion the Rights of Nature, a legal framework that acknowledges nature's right to exist, thrive, and regenerate. While not all of the rights in the Rights of Nature framework have been agreed upon, some specific rights include the right to be free from pollution and the right to biodiversity.

Through this framework, nature is allowed to represent itself in court, defend its own interests, and be protected from harm by human activity.

While it may be hard to envision nature being granted rights similar to those of an individual, the concept of granting legal personhood to entities like corporations is already common.

But, of course, the shift toward ecocentrism requires a little more than just a change in mindset and legal proceedings.

Ultimately, it requires recognizing the uncomfortable truth: we are not the center of the universe. The Earth is not just here to serve us and never was. If we keep up with this self-destructive narrative, we might find ourselves trying to explain why our planet is beyond saving.

And all of this, because it was just too much trouble to care. Pathetic, no?ste in the environment include air pollution, microplastic contamination/ingestion by humans as well as wildlife, and habitat destruction. Despite these devastating impacts, many of my peers continue to buy coffee served in plastic cups every single day, only to toss them in the trash without a second thought.

The fact that their usage of plastic actively harms the environment has a secondary importance to them in the face of comfort, convenience, and of course, other immediate priorities such as academics. This raises an important question: will current environmental education on issues such as plastic pollution be enough to effectively combat these challenges? I think not.

Anthropocentrism

Photo by Jan Kopřiva on Unsplash

The everyday disregard for the environment is not just an individual flaw, but a reflection of a broader societal system that rewards convenience over ecological responsibility. It is not just a matter of a mere plastic cup filled with coffee or another drink, but the belief that places human desires above the Earth’s health in every instance: anthropocentrism. Formally defined, anthropocentrism is the ethical belief that only humans hold intrinsic value.

From the dawn of human civilization, particularly following the Neolithic Revolution, humans' relationship with nature altered as they learned to "tame" it. This shift is evident in practices like the domestication of animals for food and clothing, as well as the transformation of land for agricultural purposes.

As time progressed, these changes were reflected in art and oral traditions, further embedding the human-centric worldview into culture. Fast forward to today, and despite our greater understanding of the environmental consequences of our actions, people, corporations, and even governments continue to contribute to the destruction of the natural world.

In recent years, the United States government has made attempts at mitigating pressing environmental issues such as plastic production/clean-up, many of which are successful, but are not enough. Continuing on the plastic pollution, consider the National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution created by the EPA. While many of the objectives presented could be impactful, they remain in the realm of what could be and are not present. The fact of the matter is, that local-level, state-level, and even federal-level governments care far too little about the environment to take a firm stance. Again, the environment takes secondary importance to human affairs e.g. the economy.

If we continue to place nature as a secondary importance, as a "you choose to care about the environment", as a "that's for the vegans", then the Earth as we know it could fade into oblivion and be replaced with a hostility that would cause numerous species to suffer indefinitely.

The Universal Nature of Oppression

To move away from a mindset that is deeply ingrained in the human experience, is difficult, to say the least.

However, a similar parallel which may be easier to understand for those newer to this idea, can be seen as one moves from intraspecies to interspecies. Humans exercise dominant control of their environment which includes species of animals and plants, similarly, they often exercise dominant control over marginalized groups of people based on factors such as race, gender, and class. Here oppression is perpetuated in that there is a hierarchy with a dominant party and a lesser party, with the dominant party often finding ways to continually legitimize its control and subsequently its superiority. Some forms of these controls include discriminatory language, limitation of education and career opportunities, and exclusion in social spaces, among others.

The way control is exercised can be overt, through practices such as overfishing or the Elephant Ivory trade, as well as covert, through animalistic language and the commodification of nature at large into literary devices, where humans are again the ones giving the environment value. While not explicit, the assumption is clear: humans are superior and they can do as they please due to their superiority, despite actively harming other parties involved who cannot even give consent or retaliate based on these actions.

Despite the moral dilemmas of anthropocentrism, many individuals continue to fight in its favor, albeit an “enlightened” version of it, citing reasons such as greater levels of intelligence and competing interests as defense. However, humans have a dependent relationship with the Earth, that is we rely on the Earth for all of our needs including fresh water, food, shelter, etc. If we are to dismiss the Earth as not having any value we are saying that our needs, which again, the Earth provides have no value when that is not true as without these needs we, as a species, would perish.

Additionally, when considering nature as an entity, we must ask, would we be willing to deface a person every day of their life through pollution, through swathes of dead animals turning up in algal blooms, or caging animals for entertainment? Such acts would be considered human rights violations, so why not the same for nature? Where are the nature’s rights violations?

Post-Humanism

But at the same time, what comes after shedding anthropocentrism?

If humans are not the only creatures with intrinsic value, how far should we go in understanding who has value?

Is life the only thing worth giving intrinsic value to?

I argue, no. Living organisms require an environment to thrive in, hence their environment has value. However, the ability to support life is not the only facet that gives non-living things value, they should have value in and of themselves as they are important to the Earth as a whole when considering the Earth as an entity; this concept is known as ecocentricism.

While it may be challenging at first to conceive of the equality of all entities within the ecosphere, particularly when considering non-sentient beings such as rocks, rivers, or even air, the concept of intrinsic value provides a moral basis for their protection. After all, just as we would not condone the violation of human rights or the rights of animals, we must recognize that the destruction of ecosystems or natural habitats harms the integrity of the Earth itself.

In recognizing this, humans are called to reject their role as rulers of the Earth, and instead embrace their role as part of an interconnected web of life on Earth.

Nature's Rights

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

In embracing our interconnected relationship with the environment, we must be willing to usher in an age of egalitarianism, the likes of which has never been seen before.

For example, human beings have the right to defend themselves in court and to rightfully gain compensation under the law, however, nature has no equivalent.

While environmental law offers some protections for nature, such as those found in the Endangered Species Act, land is often viewed in a humanist context. For example, when someone's land is ruined in any way shape, or form, it is not the land that is compensated for the harm to its ecosystems. Instead, only the landowners are compensated.

In response to this violation of nature's autonomy, countries such as Educator have begun to champion the Rights of Nature, a legal framework that acknowledges nature's right to exist, thrive, and regenerate. While not all of the rights in the Rights of Nature framework have been agreed upon, some specific rights include the right to be free from pollution and the right to biodiversity.

Through this framework, nature is allowed to represent itself in court, defend its own interests, and be protected from harm by human activity.

While it may be hard to envision nature being granted rights similar to those of an individual, the concept of granting legal personhood to entities like corporations is already common.

But, of course, the shift toward ecocentrism requires a little more than just a change in mindset and legal proceedings.

Ultimately, it requires recognizing the uncomfortable truth: we are not the center of the universe. The Earth is not just here to serve us and never was. If we keep up with this self-destructive narrative, we might find ourselves trying to explain why our planet is beyond saving. And all of this, because it was just too much trouble to care. Pathetic, no?