Saving nature for the benefit of humanity is a complex and controversial topic. On one hand, it is undeniable that nature provides numerous benefits to humans, including clean air and water, food, natural resources, and recreational opportunities. Protecting and preserving these resources is essential for the well-being and prosperity of present and future generations.
However, the idea of "saving nature for man" raises a number of ethical and philosophical questions. Is it right to prioritize the needs and interests of humans over those of other species? Is it appropriate to view nature solely as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, rather than as a complex and interconnected system with its own intrinsic value?
One potential approach to this issue is to adopt a more holistic view of nature and recognize the interconnectedness of all living things. This could involve prioritizing the conservation of entire ecosystems, rather than individual species, and recognizing the interdependent relationships between different species and their environments.
Another important aspect of this issue is the need to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. While it may be tempting to prioritize short-term economic and social interests, it is important to consider the potential long-term impacts of environmental degradation and the loss of natural resources. This may involve making difficult choices and sacrifices in the present in order to protect the well-being of future generations.
Ultimately, the key to saving nature for the benefit of humanity is to find a balance between the needs and interests of both humans and the natural world. This will require a concerted effort from governments, businesses, and individuals to adopt more sustainable practices and to prioritize the conservation of natural resources. By working together, we can ensure that nature is protected for the benefit of all living things, including ourselves.
Saving Nature but Only for Man”
For example, one forest of spotted owls may not mean much, but certainly the Earth as a whole needs a certain number of trees, and possibly a certain number of flying predators to keep the rodent population under control something they do simply, which we humans often struggle with. Again Krauthammer is forgetting his target audience. This is an obscure reference. The welfare of thirty thousand lumberjacks and their families depend upon logging this forest, which could cause the extinction of this spotted owl 293. . He has come through two world wars. This too is an appeal to emotions because people do not want other people to die in vain, especially when there is another solution to avoid these deaths of American soldiers.
Saving Nature, but for webapi.bu.edu
It goes against the grain for me to borrow money. Any reader capable of feeling compassion for the snail darter or guilt for the voters will not separate man and nature, and therefore will not make this distinction in his argument. In other words, man can only know the universe through man's eyes. Each congressman should prepare a short speech, argue with the opposite side and answer the questions raised by the jury. Whether or not the reader is wholly self-interested, no one is swayed by accusations of selfishness. The result is a complete shock of his thought process on the reader and they are most persuaded to see the motion of activities presented by the author from the point of view of the author. They are a continual presence of demonic and benevolent life so long as the cosmos Hsun-Tzu Vs Confucius approaches to Confucianism.
Saving nature but only for man
Ozone reduction not only causes skin cancer and eye cataracts, it also destroys plankton, the beginning of the food chain on top of which we humans sit. In April scientists reported that ozone damage is far worse than previously thought. We have just come through a war fought in part over oil: Energy dependence costs Americans not just dollars but lives. But now that everyone has claims to love Mother Earth, how are we to choose among the dozens of conflicting proposals, restrictions, projects, regulations and laws advanced in the name of the environment? If we can come through this financial crisis the companys future will be bright. This may be true of some, but to say that the current environmental activists all engage in some kind of nature worship is a little overboard. Then, once these green friendly citizens are already reading Krauthammer's argument, they will have the chance to see his logic and reasoning as to why it is necessary to become more anthropocentric.
Saving Nature but Only for Man
If we cut down the bear population, we could harvest more salmon safely. The new place must have the right natural and social environment to suit the needs of the individual. You dont have any reason to leave me. While both Mencius and Hsun Tzu were avowed Confucians, the held opposing views concerning human nature. I think of a lake, the crystal clear water, So pure, so smooth, and cool on my skin, The air, so clean, no toxic slaughter, There's a key, a lesson held within. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism.
Essay: Saving Nature, But Only for Man
If the cost of preserving the spotted owl is the loss of livelihood for 30,000 logging families, I choose family over owl. It is nothing more than sentimental. The most obvious opening in this argument is that we as humans cannot foresee all of the consequences of our actions. The staggering amount of favoritism he gives to humans, especially in comparison with other aspects of the planet, is at the center of each of his examples. L60-63 What theory does the author want to prove by saying so? Charles Krauthammer is a well-known right-wing political columnist and commentator who has worked or contributed to a number of magazines throughout his career Krauthammer 292 His purpose behind writing this article was to prove that nature is here to serve man and not the other way around.
