In fact, when looking at the records of the environmental fights and debates that have been fought in the past, it is no surprise to see the aspect of animal suffering and extinction being given its due attention. It is also interesting to note that fights fought by the environmentalist and animal rights activist before the World War II took place were all based on the selfish and ruthless destruction of one of the nature's most bounty resources and the extinction of the other in order to better insure the development of weapons or forces equipments, and treating both the natural resources and animals (humans and non-humans) as expendable and insignificant goods. Both groups refused to believe in the utmost faith given to science as the solution to all the problems and it is no surprise that both these revolutions began with very little space between each other. There are people now who support both the groups; environmentalist and animal rights, and feel that there is no distinction or apprehension between the two concepts, and feel that both are concerned about the greater good of the same thing: nature (Jamieson, 1997).
However, this does not, in any way, mean that both the concepts are identical and that there are no differences between the two. The differences, in my opinion, between these two concepts are perhaps as many and as reflective as the differences within each of the concepts themselves. The dominance in terms of which is more effective or thorough can only be determined by debate on opposing elements as opposed to issues that directly and hazardously affect the animals, and these issues are also given significant priority in the environmentalists' targets to achieve. The production and consumption of fish products could be one these issues. Why? Because for the sake of a healthy and balanced environment, biodiversity has to be maintained, and the ruthless hazardous dumps into the ocean, the consumption of fishes, like salmon and other fish products, which though are healthy for the humans but are creating problems for the non-human oceanic life as well as the environment at a large could be one of the issues that both the environmentalists as well as the animal rights activists could fight on with one voice (Jamieson, 1997).
It is true that both the animal rights activists and environmentalists do seem to come across as working solely for the environment and the non-human animals but all their efforts are in turn also beneficiary for the humans of the world as well. Both these concepts are somewhat in their initial stages of formation and structuring. The world is finally modifying to see the nature as beyond just a resource ready for use and careless exploitation without consequence and realized the significance of creating an environmental balance to live in a world where both mature and man is synchronized. This will however not be understood over night and numerous debates will have to be done to exactly understand the terms and conditions of the situation we have gotten ourselves into. The important thing to realize is that both the environmentalists and the animal rights activists are fighting the same battle and will be a lot stronger if united which should be the aim for the future generations to achieve: mutual understanding and venture for the sake of the greater good (Jamieson, 1997).
White, L, JR. The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 155, 3767 (10 March, 1967), pp. 1203-1207.
Jamieson, D. Animal Liberation…
The 1980s (the period when Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President) witnessed a series of government measures targeting environmental regulations. This resulted in public outrage against the anti-environmental policies of the government leading to a renewed interest in nature clubs and groups and the formation of radical groups who led strong movements to protect the environment. (vii) the post- Reagan resurgence (1990s onwards) - President Bush and President Clinton
ethics and morality of Paul Taylor's view of the environment One key ethical issue, contentious amongst environmentalists today as well as those activists who oppose the ethical philosophy of environmentalism, is whether environmentalism should be focused on improving the lot of the human animal on earth, or should attempt to benefit all species upon earth in an equal fashion. The philosopher Paul Taylor argues that environmental ethics should emphasize the
Although Sterba might argue in the long run that the children of all the world's people will be best served by placing limits upon development, it is hard to argue that it is just and fair that members of the developing world may suffer fewer benefits from industrialization because of the developed world's excesses. Neither the principles of restitutive or distributive justice are really served by either example. The
Instead of valuing some parts of nature over others, we should cultivate a universal regard for all parts of nature, down to the lowliest tree in our back yard. Aldo Leopold would agree. His "land ethic" calls for a new philosophy that includes a moral respect for the land. Like Cronon, Leopold advocates an "ecological conscience," that includes a "conviction of individual responsibility," (435). Cronon realizes that humility and
Environmental Laws vs. Economic Freedom The objective of this work is to provide an in depth analysis on environmental restrictions and economic freedom. This work will explain the rational and support the writer's view with research. Addressed will be topics including sustainability, change management, regulation and competition. Defining Environmentalism and Economic Freedom The work of Walter Block entitled "Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights" states that an environmentalist "may
Human interactions with nonhuman animals should be guided solely by the impact of these interactions with other human beings, and not upon any perceived impact upon nonhuman animals themselves. This argument is based largely upon Descartes' understanding of the essential difference between humans and nonhuman animals. Descartes' argues that the body is external to the mind, and that non-human animals do not possess the pure, thinking mind of humans. Thus,