Cogito Ergo Sum, Descartes\' Famous

Cogito ergo sum, Descartes' famous argument for existence, seems to be the defining human maxim. While any number of ethical principles are relevant to a human's approach to its environment, the fact remains that humans are the only species with the will and capacity to formulate such an approach. and, though most species are far less environmentally destructive in their habits, those same species also have no compunction against causing the extinction of other species.

As evolutionary latecomers, humans have a duty to observe the precedent set by previous species. In the past, survival has been the universal law. The species that can most effective apply their abilities to survival, adaption, and propagation have historically been the most successful.

At the same time, those species were not -- and are not -- at war. Predator and prey relationships notwithstanding, animals and plants will battle for resources, but not against each other. It is a purely human invention to kill without purpose.

In other words, the precedent set for humanity is this: see to your own. If a symbiotic relationship turns parasitic, no thread of loyalty exists to protect the parasite; only its ability to survive, adapt, and propagate. All actions are justified under the law of survival.

Accepting this precedent would not, however, give humans free license to wantonly destroy the environment; indeed, it would mandate the opposite. Because humans are dependant on the environment to provide resource and are endowed with minds capable of environmental husbandry, adherence to the set precedent would imply a significant effort to maintain the healthiest environment possible.

Improvement" is not necessarily implied, because humans do not currently possess an understanding of the environment sufficient to ensure that "improvements" do not become counterproductive; however, attempts to correct human damage is at times appropriate, when the scenario is simple enough.

The necessity of accepting this precedent transcends the mere logical. In truth, it is the only precedent that can be accepted, because for all that humans revel in their marvelous gray lumps of forebrain, the bulk of their processing still takes place in a far more animal portion of their mind. "High ethical thought," defined for the moment as thought which contradicts animal reaction, will almost certainly be dismissed. The majority of listeners will applaud the lofty sentiment, and then dismiss it as implausible -- implausible, in this instance, defined as "undesirable" -- and the remaining minority will not be the bourgeoisie, who have already acceded that the lofty is fated for sacrifice on the altar of the practical, but the plebeians, who welcome any and all ideas that offer the promise of momentary alliance to distract from the reality of monotony. An alliance which, by virtue of its creation, has a great deal of circular momentum, and of forward momentum almost none at all.