Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity of environment except satisfy vital Human Needs: agree?

Question

Do you agree that humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity of the environment except to satisfy vital human needs? Please List vital human needs and if you agree or not.

Answer 1

the best method I know to answer this question is set out by the work of philosopher Arne Naess.

He sets out a way of building on first principles to what are vital human needs in relation to the rest of the environment.

this work has underpinned the Deep Ecology movement, and now developed into the Great Turning work of Joanna Macy
http://www.joannamacy.net

Answer 2

When you write a complex sentence (which sounds like a quote: who said it?) and ask if we agree or disagree, you run the risk that the answer will not accurately reflect the answerer's meaning.

I disagree. Now, how do I mean that? Perhaps I mean that there are other reasons to reduce the "richness and diversity of environment," such as, for example, to meet the needs of other species besides ourselves. Or perhaps I mean that we have no right to reduce said richness and diversity, even to satisfy vital human needs.

What are vital human needs? Air, water, food, clothing, shelter, things like that. All except clothing are also vital needs of other species.

Personally, I think we have no opportunity to evaluate how reducing our environment in any way can be justified. Diversity is a necessary part of our survival. We need a world much the way it was throughout our history to survive. Radical changes in the environment may let some species survive, but will you be able to call it human? If our planet changes, we will change or we will die out. How far do we change before the name human no longer applies?

I really would like to know where you got that quote, because it sounds like one of those people who can't talk straight. A politician, no doubt.

Answer 3

1

Answer 4

Patzky beat me to it with some of the best. Satisfying human needs never entails the right to reduce the richness and diversity of our environment, quite the opposite for in doing so we've already created deserts and destroyed the greatest sources of medicine in our pharmacopoeia . Our monoculture has led to grains poorer in nutrients and blander in taste. Our clear cutting of forests is going to end up strangling us for lack of oxygen. The seas which once supplied what seemed an endless stock of food, now yields meager catches, some fisheries have shut down. Reefs are dying at an alarming rate. We must ask what is vital? What are needs? What are wants? What will we do after everything is gone?

Answer 5

Vital human needs: Food clothing and shelter. I disagree. People need to know how to use the environment and live within the laws of mother nature. The best way to find out how to do this is to talk with the aboriginal peoples of the world. They have the solutions for global warming and the environment.

Answer 6

I'm feeling reason bally agreeable tonight B.D.

40,000 years of intervention by Indigenous Australians satisfied the human needs for food and shelter. The entire ecosystem became dependant on it. Some plants only ever burst into seed when there is a fire and More often than not, the fire was started by Indigenous Australians to flush out food and instrument new growth for ongoing food. Over thousands of years this system of farming benefited flora, fauna and mankind alike. Similar farming techniques were established in river and estuary sytems. Crudely constructed but elaborately substantial "fish traps" were established in waterways for fish farming.

Unfortunately, when the British invaded this country 200 years ago, they failed to recognise the existing delicate permaculture structure that existed. The fish traps were so natural looking that they were not recognised by white settlers for more than a hundred years of forced occupation and genocide. Of course, now we suffer from great risk of bushfire and the land is desecrated by western farming, mono cropping, mining, salts have risen and water tables have fallen... it's all very interesting don't you agree? The closer we humans get to a "touch the earth lightly" philosophy... the closer we are to a sustainable and diverse environment that we can reasonably conclude enriches us.

Oh.. for chuck steak.... Of course, whatever you think, I agree with you anyway.. at least tonight.

Answer 7

I do agree to a certain point. If we were just to live off our environment just to fill our needs we would be in the stone age again. However I do agree that people should definitely decide on what they want and what they need. Also there are so many simple cheap things that people could do to make a difference if only they could take the time.

Great Question!

Answer 8

I Agree, Society Does Suck! in certainty It rather Sucks - yet All you will Do is merely flow with the flow, Or all people no longer Following gets rapidly Brushed below The Carpet. there is a lot Sh*t occurring In Society it extremely is totally almost difficult to no longer Care! yet you be attentive to What - How approximately We merely think of of all the Deep Faults In Society because of the fact the previous And Our own person destiny As wish. all of us be attentive to greater suited Than Society, and could no longer enable It merely Sweep Us Into The nook! there is a lot To existence, And human beings are no longer the only issues in the worldwide. think of certainly interior the experience which you're exterior That dark cutting-edge interior the River, You Do be attentive to greater suited and clearly There Are Others such as you Too. merely shop on as though existence's All A comedian tale, we are All merely yet another Ant on the floor Or Shell on the coastline, and are not from now on or much less significant Than all people Or the rest in the worldwide - in this Infinitely great Universe! So snigger At those stupid Politicians Who think of Their So significant of their Posh outfits And wealthy autos, Or The Dumb human beings around Who Can by no skill look on the great image In existence, reason Their those dropping Their Lives As an entire. So snigger At Them!!!

Answer 9

This is the argument that has been used to take the use of the land from farmers and homeowners.

If you are going to take the use of a person's land from them you must compensate them at fair market value of the use of the land that you took from them.

Under our system you do not have the right to take the use of some elses land unless you are willing to pay fair market value for their property that you took from them.

Answer 10

the diversity and richness is what nature consists of in all her wholeness. predatory species in nature practice destruction of individual members of a species, but except in unusual cases they will not threaten the existence of all the members of their prey. only man reserves that right to help cause extinction, because he has the ability to change habitats on such a grand scale.

along with this ability and the intelligence (?) to observe the effects we have, should come the responsibility to know when enough is enough. i don't believe we have the right to drive any habitat into a monoculture for our needs (any needs) nor any species to extinction.

by vital human needs i believe you mean those necessary for survival: food, water, shelter, those things low on maslow's hierarchy. we are able to meet those needs without needless destruction of diversity. we can adapt our political priorities, agricultural practices, and dependence on fossil fuels that beg us to degrade more and more habitats. when peak oil? when no honeybees?

our attention should be to the world we live in as well as to our fellow man, and our descendants. care of the earth, care for its people, and smarter managing of the resources we have are what will enable us to preserve the diverse habitats we may need to survive in some future years. who knows what amazing cures and foods might be hidden in that rain forest?

in contrast to the fellow above me, i agree.