Goal of Ecology Depends Substantially

¶ … goal of ecology depends substantially on the perspective of the observer. On one hand, there might be a temptation to ignore the issues of ecology and to say "so what?" simply because most major ecological initiatives will not produce any meaningful effects during the lifetime of any individual involved in those efforts (p.440-441). On the other hand, one can commit to ecological principles because they will benefit future generations of mankind, even if ecological measures only take effect after the lives of those individuals who implement those changes. However, it is still possible to take the "so what?" point-of-view because even the history of all of human life on earth will come to an end because in the largest scale of time, human history is merely a very small blip in the history of the planet (p.442).

According to the first view, human beings have taken excessive advantage of the planet and they have depleted its resources irresponsibly because they have been concerned only with the present and with their short-term benefits. In that context, "so what" means there is no reason to worry beyond today because whatever happens to the planet in the future does not matter to anybody alive today. According to the opposite perspective, people living today have an ethical and moral obligation to act as responsible stewards for future generations.

The version of "so what" that is a reference to the fact that the earth will continue long after the extinction of the human species suggests that whatever damage human beings inflict on the planet is inconsequential because the natural ecological processes described by the Gaia Hypotheses of James Lovelock (p.441) will heal the planet after the last human beings are long gone. However, that perspective ignores all of the human hardship and suffering caused by some human beings that affect others as long as human societies exist. Finally, the most extreme version of "so what" suggests that nothing on earth matters, whether before, during, or after the reign of human beings, because, ultimately, all life and all planets will die, and even the smallest particles of matter (i.e. protons) will eventually decay into complete nothingness in time (p.444).

Article Critique and Personal Response

The description of various philosophical perspectives and the corresponding ethical conclusions provides an accurate account of the different possible points-of-view that one can take about ecology and relative value of preserving the planet. The author presents a conclusion that I support. Specifically, he suggests that the most appropriate application of the "so what?" perspective is that it does not really matter whether or not anything matters on earth. He suggests that instead of worrying so much about whether human life will exist forever or how long the planet or the universe will exist in the long-term, we should contribute toward the overall good of others for however long we exist as a species. In the author's words, "So what if we're screwed? Seize the day" (p.444).