Eleazar G.

Anaya

BS Psychology 2E

1. Why is environmental science called an interdisciplinary field of study?

Interdisciplinarity or interdisciplinary studies involves the combining of two or more academic

disciplines into one activity. It draws knowledge from several other fields like sociology, anthropology,
psychology, economics etc. It is about creating something by thinking across boundaries.

Environmental science relates to more than one branch of knowledge which is also referred as
an interdisciplinary field because it incorporates information and ideas from multiple disciplines. Within
the natural sciences, such fields as biology, chemistry, and geology are included in environmental
science. It provides a real and direct connection for students between the study of science and the world
around them.

2. Why do we need to study the environment of an organism?

Ecology is the study of the environment and relationships between living organisms, including
humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand the vital connections between plants and
animals and the world around them.

Why is ecology important? Ecology enriches our world and is crucial for human wellbeing and
prosperity. It provides new knowledge of the interdependence between people and nature that is vital for
food production, maintaining clean air and water, and sustaining biodiversity in a changing climate.

Nature and environment are commonly used terms for the ecology. Man is seen as a sort of
geological force reshaping landscape, favoring some kinds of organisms and destroying others, changing
the very composition of the atmosphere and starting new chain of radio activity with atomic explosions.
Ecology is the key word in the world as the world tries to mitigate the destruction that is already rife in
the ecosystem. As ecology is the interactions between organisms and their habitat and we are all the part
of ecosystem, we have study about the ecology that we can avoid our actions having unintended
consequence.

If we want to conserve and protect nature and prevent the extinction of species, we need to know
how they all fit together, what their habitat requirements are, how they influence each other, what the
minimum population sizes are to ensure their survival, etc. For survival of species, natural areas, as well
as agricultural sustainability, ecology is important. Without a good knowledge of ecology, the study of
other fields will be useless, and the human species will extinct.

3. What would likely happen in the environment if the head of the country believes in
anthropocentrism? Why?

Anthropocentrism refers to a human-centered, or “anthropocentric,” point of view. In

philosophy, anthropocentrism can refer to the point of view that humans are the only, or primary,
holders of moral standing.
 It is hard to believe, but there was a time when humans considered the Earth a sacred
entity – something that needed to be protected at all costs. Subscribers to the classical view (such
as Aristotle and Plato) viewed the universe as an organism and treated it with respect. They
understood the interconnectivity of nature and did not dare to upset the fragile balance of the
universe. When Newton came up with the laws of gravity and motion during the Scientific
Revolution, he destroyed the theological reverence individuals had for nature.

Though there have been efforts to curb our impact upon the planet, but unfortunately it
has not been enough. It does not matter whether Congress passes more regulations on clean
energy or whether carbon credits mitigate our carbon footprint. Nor does not matter if the
administration continues to complain about the dangers of climate change. We can try to change
people’s behaviors through policy reform, but we cannot change their minds. Nothing will change
until we start revering nature in the same way that we did centuries ago. Can we recapture that
long-gone appreciation? I am not sure how we will reverse centuries upon centuries of ill-
thinking, but acknowledging the problem is a start. We must own up to the fact that we are the
driving force behind climate change and that it is not natural to continue the world to shreds. Not
only we have to hold ourselves accountable, but we also must hold our politicians accountable.
Denying climate change should quickly become a thing of the past, and those who do not act in
Mother Nature’s best interest should hastily be voted out. We do not have time to waste on those
who refuse to see that climate change is the elephant in the room and that it is not going away
anytime soon. It may not be easy to tackle climate change, but that does not mean we should just
sit around twiddling our thumbs.

4. Which is nearest your view among the three ethical perspectives? Why?

In the context of environmental ethics, an ecocentric view is one that holds that Earth's
ecology and ecosystems (including its atmosphere, water, land, and all life forms) have intrinsic
value—meaning they should be protected and valued even if they can't be used by humans as
resources and this is exactly my view in the context of environmental ethics.
We believe that ecocentrism, through its recognition of humanity’s duties towards nature, is
central to solving our unprecedented environmental crisis. Its importance is for multiple reasons:

In ethical terms: ecocentrism expands the moral community (and ethics) from being just about
ourselves. It means we are not concerned only with humanity; we extend respect and care to all
life, and indeed to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems themselves.
In evolutionary terms: ecocentrism reflects the fact Homo sapiens evolved out of the rich web
of life on Earth – a legacy stretching back an almost unimaginable 3.5 billion years. Other species
literally are our cousins and relatives (close and distant), recognition of a biological kinship that
many have recognized confers moral responsibilities toward all species.
In spiritual terms: Many people and some societies have developed ecocentric moral sentiments.
There is increasing evidence that ecocentric values are being fused into nature-based, ecocentric
spiritualities, many of which are innovative and new. With such spiritualities, even people who
are entirely naturalistic in their worldviews, often speak of the Earth and its ecosystems as
‘sacred’ and thus worthy of reverent care and defense.
 In ecological terms: ecocentrism reminds us that all life is interdependent and that both humans
and nonhumans are dependent on the ecosystem processes that nature provides. An
anthropocentric conservation ethic alone is wholly inadequate for conserving biodiversity.
Ecocentrism is rooted in an evolutionary understanding that reminds us that we are latecomers to
what Leopold evocatively called “the odyssey of evolution”. This logically leads both to empathy
for our fellow inhabitants; and, to humility, because in this process we are no different from other
species. And ecology teaches humility in another way, as we do not know everything about the
world’s ecosystems, and never will.

5. If we want to have a great environment leader, which among the multiple justification
perspective should he mostly believed in?

We maintain our nature, and life on Earth is inherently good. Nature has intrinsic value,
irrespective of whether humans are the ones valuing it. Environmental philosopher Holmes
Rolston argues, “Some values are already there, discovered not generated by the valuer …” It is
true that, as far as we know at present, we humans are the only species that reflects on
and applies moral values. However, we can also understand that life has co-evolved to form the
wondrous complexity of the web of life – and contend nature has value, whether humans perceive
this or not. This brings me to a conclusion that a great environment leader must have an
ecocentrism viewpoint in terms of environment ethical perspective. Ecocentrism helps to solve
the environmental crisis, ecologist John Stanley Rowe has argued: The well-being of non-human
life on Earth has value. This value is independent of any instrumental usefulness for limited
human purposes. It seems to me that the only promising universal belief-system is ecocentrism,
defined as a value-shift from Homo sapiens to planet earth. A scientific rationale backs the value-
shift. All organisms are evolved from Earth, sustained by Earth. Thus Earth, not organism, is the
metaphor for Life. Earth not humanity is the Life-center, the creativity-center. Earth is the whole
of which we are subservient parts. Such a fundamental philosophy gives ecological awareness
and sensitivity an enfolding, material focus.

References:

Cunningham, M. (n.d.) What is Environmental Science? - Definition and Scope of the Field. Retrieved
Oct 8, 2020 from https://study.com/academy/lesson/what- is-environmental-science-
definition- and-scope-of-the-field.

ESA. (n.d.) What is Ecology. Retrieved Oct 08,2020 from https://www.esa.org/about/what-does-

ecology-have-to-do-with-me
Alexandratos. (2016) Has Anthropocentrism Ruined Our Planet? Retrieved Oct 08, 2020 from
https://eportfolios.mac aulay.cuny.edu/est2016/2016/09/11/has- anthropocentrism-ruined-our-
planet/

Padwe, J. (2013) Anthropocentrism. Retrieved Oct 08, 2020 from

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo 9780199830060/obo-
9780199830060- 0073.xml#:~:text=Anthropocentrism%20refers%20to%20a%20human,primary
%2C% 20holders% 20of%20moral%20standing.

Cryer et al. (2017) Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. Retrieved Oct
  08, 2020 from
https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/statement-ecocentrism/