Blog Response: The Ends of the World as We Know Them
In Jared Diamond’s essay, “The Ends of the World as We know Them,” he raises the topic of the inevitable destruction of our society due to our continuous “unrestrained consumerism” and the resulting environmental degradation. Diamond encourages us to take a page from history and prevent our own destruction by following in the footsteps of societies such as the Incas instead of becoming the next Easter Island. In his argument, he states that because of our dependence on nature and the value of the environment we must begin to face environmental problems.
In this reading, one of the things I thought was most interesting was the value given to the environment. Diamond seemed only to write from an anthropocentric view point where the value of the environment was purely instrumental, in that we must save the environment so that our society can continue to use it in our own self-interests. However, what about the other values that the environment holds besides one of instrumental purpose? Is there not value in the environment solely because it exists or is its only value inherent? And if there is an intrinsic value in nature solely for existing, does that value therefore give the environment inherent value? Therefore, if we believe (which some of us might not) that the environment holds intrinsic value and because of this, also holds inherent value, then is there not also a responsibility to prevent environmental degradation aside from its instrumental value? Do these values (intrinsic and inherent) even matter in our society, or are instrumental values the ones which hold the most importance?
Though I feel that all of these values are important, it also makes sense that the environment be considered in instrumental terms. Even environmental scientists must give the environment instrumental value by assigning things such as trees monetary value. How do we view the environment non anthropocentrically while also having to view it anthropocentrically if we are to facilitate changes in a society that sees things in dollar signs?
Can’t wait to hear from you guys!
I think you hit the nail on the head in this reading. The question of whether or not Diamond is right in focusing on the collapse of society rather than the erosion of environment is exactly what I was worried about while reading this passage. And for you to then ask how to view the environment from a non-anthropocentric perspective (especially with the economic force driving almost all of our actions) is I think an excellent question that really gets to the heart of the problem. I think that it is right to think that the environment has an intrinsic value, however I really wonder how much of this value may be realized by humans. My reasoning lies in my idea that this intrinsic value may be found in the wild's nature (read my blog post for more on that) and that perhaps this is more of a Kantian noumenon and not a phenomenon. So then we may not be able to fully realize what this value is, or how it is intrinsically valuable, as there is no value to us (beyond perhaps the aesthetic feeling presented by the natural beauty of untouched environment) we may not be able to understand this value. That does not however mean that it shouldn't be respected. I am really at a loss in the ultimate answer to your question of how to view the environment from a non-anthropocentric perspective, because that would mean to allow ourselves a god-like perspective, taking ourselves completely out of the picture, and I am unsure whether that is feasible or not. I would however argue that perhaps we could shift our anthropocentric view from the economic effects to the sustainability of life and society (as Diamond does) and perhaps this could motivate the masses to give a shit about the environment. Perhaps this is a weaker stance than I would like to take, as it seems to be saying that intention doesn't matter, but in this case, as I would argue it is not an ethical decision, perhaps the result is actually more important than the reasoning.
ReplyDeleteGood post, I really think you addressed a lot of the important issues within this reading.
Great job Jas! I know you were worried about analyzing this passage through the lens of philosophy (as am I), but I think you got it. As far as your question about values, I've been pondering this all day since we discussed in class. The conclusion I've come to is that yes, nature does have intrinsic value. Nature (I'm using that word to mean the entirety of the natural and living world) has the ability to create, grow, adapt, and change. Aren't these some of the same aspects of humans that we find intrinsically valuable? I believe that even without any benefit to ourselves, humans can recognize this value. It may be difficult, and close to impossible for some, but I think it can be done. The ability simply to live should be something respected, something valued. Although, within our society today, this is a attribute often taken for granted. So I say respect life. Respect the ability to live, to grow, and to exist.
ReplyDelete