Ecocentrism and Bright Green

Environmentalism

By: Norma Calderon

 About
(Main Idea, Summary)

Ecocentrism contains the ethic that all types of nature

have value for their own sake, regardless of the level of
usefulness for humans (which is what anthropocentrism
focuses on in contrast)

Bright green environmentalism centralizes in the ideology

that greener, modern technological and social change is
what is needed to help the environment without losing our
innovative prosperity

With those ideologies combined, I believe we will succeed

in preserving the environment for the world’s and
society’s sake at the same time.
 History (Time and Sequence)

Beginnings- Native Americans can be regarded as the first American

environmentalists by their practices that considered nature as a
community to which humans as well as every other thing belong

1800’s- Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were the
“fathers of the transcendental movement” during the Romantic Era,
in which as a reaction to the environmental damages made in the
Industrial Revolution, nature was highly valued

However, Emerson stuck to anthropocentric views (seeing humans

as dominant to nature) and Thoreau diverged into more ecocentric
views(seeing humans as equal to nature))

1900’s- Aldo Leopold is another figure in American wildlife ecology

and was one the first ecologists to extend their ideas into an
ecocentric ideology
Early 1960’s- Rachel Carson, often nicknamed The Mother of The
Environmental Movement published a book in 1962, Silent Spring,
which kickstarted the modern environmental movement by
focusing on humans’ need for "sharing our earth with other
creatures"

Late 1960s-Late 1970's- The Counterculture Movement brought

many issues to a rallying point for young citizens, including
several environmental disasters, like the pollution of the Great
Lakes

In April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day took place

Today- Issues like global warming, deforestation, pollution,

animal abuse among others have caused environmentalism to
split into many different subcategories, including more
politically controversial ones
 (Problem & Solution)

What we can do to help As a society

As individuals ● Government should encourage the
● Reduce, Reuse, and recycle revolutionary, more eco friendly
(obviously) measures scientists are coming up
● Practice composting with
● Plant trees and grow our ● Modern green technology (ex.home
own organic food solar panels and electric cars)
products should be made cheaper and more
● Buy local available to people
products/products that ● Industries should invest on
have/make less harmful managing resource use and carbon
chemicals emissions more wisely
● The media should also advocate
● Stop littering and help
more for going green
pick up trash
● There should be more laws
● Join any local protecting the ecosystem
environmental group
 Opposers and their claims
-The main opposers of any environmental aid are leaders
and individuals, who are usually conservative, that
prioritize the need of maintaining the fossil fuel industry
going to keep our capitalistic economy growing; this
makes them care less about the damages done to nature
by the actions taken to help the industry. Their
arguments vary in the ideas that climate change doesn't
exist or isn't caused by humans, and that
environmentalists, especially radical ones, are only
causing a struggle in the economy with the own agendas.
-Sometimes even anthropocentric environmentalists
argue against ecocentrics that sometimes more social or
political solutions just stop humans from thriving.
 Validity of claims & Reply
First of all, to anybody that thinks climate change and global warming isn't real: it is, and although
it has happened naturally throughout the Earth's history, human activities have made the pace in
which the Earth’s temperature rises much quicker; almost all scientists agree on that. As proof, a
Skeptical Science research team once looked at a large amount of studies that focused on the topic
of climate change, and the result was that, “When the climate scientists themselves said whether
or not their work supported the idea of anthropogenic climate change, ‘97.2% endorsed the
consensus.’”
Now who should you believe more, politicians that fill their pockets with all the oil we are digging
for, destroying for, and killing for, when we could simply use the sun’s energy, or scientists whose
job is to inform us about the actual facts of what is going on?

Secondly, for those who say we should only focus on protecting the nature that help us, that’s
substantially every aspect of it, because although some animals or plants don’t help us to say,
improve the economy, they do provide other values, including "scientific, spiritual, aesthetic,
heritage, psychological, cultural, or at least intrinsic values”. We know that humans as part of our
nature can become dangerous without restraint, so it's essential to get a hold of it with such actions
as preserving nature as much as we can, before we lose it and never get it back.
 (Perspective/Bias)

Why it’s important for me

As an environmentalist and humanist at the same time, I am aware of Like come on, this isn’t environmental reform
the concern people have of sacrificing prosperity if we cut down
some activities that destroy nature but help the economy. However,
my belief is that we won't sacrifice, just exchange results that can
still be beneficial. And to be frank, I’m fed up with people radically
fighting about politics while nature is still getting hurt.

All in all, are we humans more important than any other form of
nature: who knows? But I don’t believe that defines if we should use
our abilities to help nature thrive or not; it depends on whether we
are willing to lose a couple of the already few wonders of the
universe that we have been able to experience so far, and my
personal answer is no, so I try my best to think and act green as
much as I can. This is
 Similar movements
-The environmental justice movement is also about improving
the environment, but is more socially-driven, as it focuses on
involvement equality in respect of community development
regardless of race, color, nationality, income levels, etc. This is
mostly practiced around minority-dominated neighborhoods
where environmental laws and regulations are less strict or
implemented, causing them to basically become the local areas’
dumping grounds, especially for any nearby industrial sites.

-The animal rights movement is also similar in the aspect of

being fair to non-human beings, although it includes practices
like vegetarianism or veganism, and it touches topics like
experimenting on animals, wearing animal skin, and the
industrialization of meat distribution for consumers, specifically
against those actions.
THE END
Sources (Most of what was written was paraphrased from original sites and the rest was quoted )
Slide 2: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/kingcobra2012/ib-ess-chapter-7environmental-value-system

Slides 2, 5: https://www.smartmeetings.com/magazine_article/14-bright-green-ideas

(Main points) Slides 3,4,7: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/S98/Ohara/EnvEthics.html

Slide 4:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/decades-of-change/the-counter-culture-and-environmentalism.php

Slide 5: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/15-easy-ways-to-become-environmentally-friendly.php

Slide 6: https://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html

(Main points) Slide 7:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-friendly-reminder-from-pretty-much-every-climate-scientist-in-the-
world-climate-change-is-real-64163890/ and
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Slide 9: https://ilenviro.org/environmental-justice/

Slide 9:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/social-reform/animal-rights-m