Thus far, we have examined environmental Worldviews as they have evolved over time. The worldview effects and dictates how humans view and utilize their environment. The term “Anthropocene” is a proposed epoch of natural history which commenced when humans fist had impact on geological and natural systems. Inthe Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rdedition, Donald VanDeVeer had a comprehensive time chart which maps out significant events in human history on the planet from the first appearance of humans to present day. He lists that the first human appearance in natural history occurred approximately 150,000 years ago in Africa with the presence of anatomically modern humans (VandeVeer, 656-657). Since the development of agriculture around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, humans have progressed in the fields of ecology, biology, philosophy, religion, and economics; all of these advances directly dictate how humans value the environment and its conservation, and to what ends they value it. The knowledge that we have of all of those fields even effect our treatment of the planet in ways we do not realize, and with potential consequences that we cannot see.
These advances, such as the work of Isaac Newton, the Industrial Revolution, Einstein’s theory of relativity, the creation of nuclear weapons etc., have given humanity certain power over the environment which are viewed to suit our own human purposes (ie. Power over each other), but ultimately affect our environment in not all positive ways. In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, which described the critical and potentially irreversible stresses that human beings inflict upon our planet. The scientists strongly urge humans to modify current practices which endanger all life on the planet, not just humanity (VanDeVeer, xxvii-xxviii). Problems cited by the scientists that require correction or modification include: mass production/consumption of agriculture; depletion and pollution of the ozone, water resources, oceans, and forests; rapid species loss; human population growth that exceeds the earth’s capacity to sustain life. The 1992 warning threatens that “no more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished”. (VanDeVeer, xxviii).
The solutions they proposed which might have a chance at counteracting the environmental damage of the Anthropocene must all be implemented simultaneously. Necessary steps include: the end of environmentally damaging practices in favor of environmentally sustainable economy and energy; efficient management of remaining resources; stabilizing the population through the guarantee of sexual equality/women being granted control of their reproductive decisions; the reduction/elimination of poverty, violence, and war (VanDeVeer, xxviii-xxix). This was a desperate plea to all of humanity, which was re-examined and re-iterated 25 years later.
In 2017, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”, where they evaluated the amount of progress since the initial warning. The 15,364 scientists found that since 1992, “with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse” (World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice, 2017). They demonstrated this in the figure below (Fig. 3), with human effects on the earth in the years before the 1992 warning depicted in grey, and the years after depicted in black. The 2017 warning also issued suggestions in a similar vein to those in the first warning, insisting that every person take immediate action to drastically diminish our per capita consumption of all exploited resources (i.e. Fossil fuels, meat, and other essential resources) as a moral imperative to current and future humans.
(Fig. 3. Environmental Trends Over Time. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”. 2017.)
According to Tyler Miller, the ideal principle that should be at the center of human action to preserve our environment should be “sustainability”. In “Environmental Problems, Their Causes, and Sustainability”, Miller defines sustainability as “the capacity of the earth’s natural systems and human cultural systems to survive, flourish, and adapt to changing environmental conditions into the very long-term future” (Miller, p5). To further elaborate, Miller says that sustainability has three main components of which humans must be mindful: Natural resources (essential energy/materials to humans), natural services (natural processes which renew our resources), and natural capital (the combination of the two which supports all life and economies) (Miller, p9). Working towards sustainability means acknowledging and addressing the fact that, more and more as the Anthropocene progresses, human activities create environmental problems by degrading the essential natural capital. Humans deplete natural resources faster than natural processes can restore them.
Using the Global Footprint Network, I investigated my own ecological footprint by using their Footprint Calculator Quiz. The result I received was that at my current rate of resource consumption and waste, by May 27th, I would have used all of that year’s renewable natural resources allocated to me. I also determined by Carbon Footprint using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Carbon Footprint Calculator. My result was an annual carbon footprint of 9,868 lbs., where the U.S. national average is 17,052 lbs. I was definitely shocked to learn that if everyone on the planet consumed all essential and non-essential resources at the same rate as me, we would need 2.5 earths to have enough resources for the year. My Carbon Footprint is around half the national average, but this doesn’t make me satisfied that I am living sustainably because I know I could work to make it lower and that other countries have much lower national averages.
Word Count: 1080
2 Line Discussion Question: A large part of suggested sustainability efforts in the 1992 and 2017 warnings concerned reducing overpopulation, which would subsequently reduce natural capital degradation. If this is not accomplished in the next 1 or few decades, they warn that the surplus of humans will have damaged the environment past the point of no return. Logistically, is simply limiting the number of babies born going to be enough to significantly reduce the population before it is too late?
Citations:
Miller, Tyler G. “Environmental Problems, Their Causes, and Sustainability”. Cengage Learning. 2011.
Union of Concerned Scientists. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”. 2017.
VanDeVeer, Donald, Pierce, Christine.The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rdedition. Thompson & Wadsworth. 2003.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment