Should Environmental Preservation Be Prioritized Over Natural Wild Conditions?

[Dissident Dan]

I consider the basis for all ethics/morality the existence of emotional creatures. I my considering of the ethical implications of any action, I consider the effects of the action upon any emotional creatures...basically, does it cause pain or joy? to what extent?

I have been an environmentalist for a while now. The largest basis for that has been a respect for the feelings of the creatures of other species that dwell in the wild. I believe that most animals have feelings of suffering and happiness. Only those with the simplest nervous systems do not these capacities--this would include animals such as those sea-dwelling ones that look like plants, attached to the ocean's floor, and possibly some species of insects.

I have wanted to protect other species from the death and suffering imposed upon them by human activites. However, I have recently thought about the savagery of the wild and wondered which conditions are overall, more pleasant...extermination and loss of habitat due to human activity, or the struggle for life and limb present in the wild without human interference. It is a question which I don't really think anyone could answer sufficiently at this point in time.

I think that inevitably, some animals will suffer more at the hands of humans than under wild conditions, but some may also lead more happiness in certain animals, and human activity will certainly lead to a reduction in the number of beings existing that can feel pain.

However, if these wild habitats are replaced with modern animal agricultural institutions--factory farms--I think that the average level of happiness in these areas would be greater in the wild setting.

I look at all things occurring that are not the effects of my own actions--human activity and non-human activity alike--and wonder if changing the conditions by advocating environmental preservation would result in a general increase or decrease in pain and death.

The other aspect is the value that wild environments have to domesticated animals such as humans and dogs, which obviously includes myself, and so I have a self-interest in preservation. We depend on them for resources that ensure our survival, and they provide us with recreation. This is seeming to be the more concrete reason to me, because of the doubts and questions that I have mentioned.

[edit]
I don't have a point to make with this post, I just wanted to express my thoughts.
[/edit]

 

[drag]

Greetings !

That's an interesting way to look at it, DD. I suppose
it does result in a rather difficult dillema.

My personal POV is that all forms of life are life.
They represent the diversity of nature and evolution.
We are the first single species of creatures on the surface
of this planet that managed to break the evolutionary
balance because we can exterminate entire species if we wish to.

I think that we have a responsibility to maintain all
forms of life, not because we must due to some false
ideology (all ideologies are eventually false) but because
we can and we choose to. Because that's what I think it
means to be human.

Unfortunetly, because there is no correct ideology there
exists the opposite so called "practical" POV of other people.
It says - who cares about othet life forms as long as we
do not need them for our own considrable benefit of some kind ?
People say - this rain-forest is great but I need to earn
my living and feed my family so sure that's worth infinetly more
to me and thus I will cut it down and built a city there.

The constant growth of human world population to unsustainable proportions appears to many to be "morally" justified bacuase
how can you stop people from giving birth(as they say) !? Who
cares about tomorrow, they say. It will be alright, they say.

Who's right ? Nobody.
What should we do ? That's what humanity has to decide.

Live long and prosper.

 

[R0man]

I appreciate your thoughtful reflection on your environmental ethical dilemma. It is clear that you have a strong belief in the importance of considering the well-being of all creatures, including non-human ones, in ethical decision making. Your consideration of the effects of actions on emotional creatures, and the balance between suffering and happiness, is a valid and important aspect of ethical thinking.

It is understandable that you are questioning the potential consequences of human interference in wild habitats. It is a complex issue with no easy answers. However, I believe that it is important to remember that human activities, such as deforestation and pollution, have already caused significant harm to many species and their habitats. By advocating for environmental preservation, we can work towards minimizing that harm and potentially creating more balanced and sustainable ecosystems.

Additionally, as you mentioned, there is also the self-interest aspect to consider. We are interconnected with the natural world and depend on it for our survival and well-being. By preserving wild habitats, we are also protecting our own resources and recreational spaces.

In the end, I think it is important to continue questioning and evaluating our actions and their effects on the environment. But ultimately, I believe that prioritizing the well-being of all creatures and working towards preservation and sustainability is the most ethical approach. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic.