Introduction
The presented case scenario indicates that redbeard_90 does not see anything wrong with the ongoing damage and destruction of the natural environment. This situation supports the argument that redbeard_90 is placing value on destruction as the correct path towards making the planet better for all human beings. For redbeard_90, a unique attitude is evident whereby people would be allowed to act freely through the power of the free use conception. Such an approach has the potential to encourage more individuals in different parts of the globe to overuse a wide range of natural resources. Redbeard_90 would guide people to utilize the environment without necessarily thinking about posterity and protection (Brusseau, 2012). This attitude would be informed by the notion that humans are engaging in actions intended to transform the planet and the natural environment in order to suit them.
Discussion
The progress and domination argument remains a common approach many people opposed to environmental protection apply. Specifically, the notion guides individuals to avoid placing any intrinsic or necessary value in the environment. Those who pursue such an ideology would acknowledge that an autonomous worth is lacking in all animals, resources, plant, and water (Brusseau, 2012). This free-use argument is applied to guide communities to rely on the natural world to meet their needs and achieve their maximum potential.
The above form of argument appears to be in tandem with what redbeard_90 wrote on Yahoo! forum page. Specifically, the student seems not to care about the idea of saving the planet. The individual is convinced that humans should continue pursuing their goals and rely on the available resources to meet their demands (Meier et al., 2019). In such a way, redbeard_90 believes the proposed approach could guide and help humans to transform their surrounding environments to suit their demands. From this analysis, it is agreeable that redbeard_90 presents an observation that echoes the domination and progress argument whenever focusing on the planet.
The responses by Super Nova reveal that she believes strongly in environmental conservation since it has the potential to protect the planet. She understands that future generations would need it for survival and realization of their goals. Based on the statement, two unique values appear to be guiding her expectations and desire. First, the biosphere value could guide personal actions and ideas that are intended to take care and protect the natural environment (Meier et al., 2019). Second, the altruistic value guides people to take good care and support of other people. Based on these attributes, it is agreeable that Super Nova is concerned about the welfare of individuals who could be at risk of air pollution and the natural environment.
Super Nova is convinced that human beings have a role to protect and safeguard the integrity of the natural environment. This is the case since any attempt to pollute the planet contributes to respiratory problems and other health predicaments. By engaging in activities that are intended to save the planet, Super Nova believes strongly that most of the problems recorded today could be reduced significantly. The woman goes further to acknowledge that future generations could only survive and achieve their goals if those occupying the planet today safeguard their respective environments (Brusseau, 2012). The initiative would help address the problem of draughts, protect lakes, and ensure that more people have access to adequate food supplies.
The ideas by Super Nova reveal that she believes strongly that nature has an intrinsic value. Specifically, the natural environment needs to exist irrespective of human expectations or uses. This means that people should be keen to protect it and understand that it was not only meant for their use or benefits. Based on this understanding, it is agreeable that an ecocentric viewpoint emerges from her observation (Brusseau, 2012). Failure to uphold such a value means that more individuals or communities would be entitled to destroy the planet while pursuing their goals.
Luke presents an animated response intended to guide more people to change the current national mindset regarding the issue of environmental conservation. Based on the poster, it would be agreeable that Luke is among those who mix a little of protecting the planet and worrying about human welfare. The reasoning behind such an observation is that Luke is convinced that most of the measures people advocate for might not help the planet recover completely (Meier et al., 2019). However, planet Earth could not be prevented for using a little help. Additionally, Luke goes further to indicate that the efforts to develop cleaner energy and alternative fuels could work positively for him and others.
Some people interested in the welfare of the planet are either interested in helping nonhuman animals or the natural world in totality. From his words, it is agreeable that Luke is among those who are focusing on the integrity of the natural world. This is true since he begins by acknowledging that the planet could accept some help to ensure that it recovers from the industrial plunder experienced for hundreds of years. He goes further to indicate that people could support clean energy and protect the problematic challenge of global warming (Grossman, 2018). Luke’s arguments and observations are, therefore, designed in such a way that they could help protect the natural environment.
The idea of environmental conservation could be pursued by limiting the process of industrialization or relying on industrial advances. After going through his statements, it is agreeable that Luke sounds more of a conservationist because he begins by advocating for a new mindset. He goes further to accept any form of advancement as long as it helps make the available air cleaner or reduces he price of oil. The process of developing cleaner ways of doing things call for advanced industrial activities (Grossman, 2018). These notions show conclusively that Luke is more of a conservationist than a protector.
From the presented poster, it is notable that scottsdalehigh64 does not place much value or concern for human existence. He believes that humans have been destructive over the years since they think they have a higher right in comparison with the other forms of life. He views all creatures as equal and expects people to respect and allow them to live peacefully without any form of disturbance (Brusseau, 2012). However, human activities have remained questionable and unacceptable. This happens to be the case since such actions are capable of leading human beings closer to extinction.
Based on poster, the reader acknowledges that scottsdalehigh64 places value on the integrity of the natural environment. The contributor cares for all living creatures and believes that they should be protected from human activities since they are destructive and unacceptable. From such an observation, he goes further to indicate that there is a need for all human beings to protect all other life forms found on the planet. He appears not to care about humans because they have remained entitled while their actions have affected all other life forms (Grossman, 2018). This understanding could explain why scottsdalehigh64 believes that there is a need to protect all other creatures so that they can survive comfortably should human beings become extinct.
Scottsdalehigh64 guides readers to identify and define what a good place to live in ought to be. Specifically, he appears to accept that all creatures are equal and should be supported to live and succeed in their habitats without interference. The passage goes further to indicate that human beings have remained entitled for centuries. This misbehavior allows them to oppress and destroy all other forms of life on the planet (Grossman, 2018). Scottsdalehigh64 goes further to encourage people to remain more concerned and make the planet livable, sustainable, and capable of supporting all life forms.
Scottsdalehigh64 offers a unique approach that could become the basis for an argument intended to protect the planet against all forms of destruction. By removing all life-forms that remain destructive to other living creatures, communities would become more aware and capable of avoiding all questionable activities. This kind of elimination emerging from the idea by scottsdalehigh64 could mean avoiding all initiatives that are destructive in nature, such as pollution, overutilization of natural resources, and deforestation. The best action plan would be to provide legal frameworks intended to inform human activities while taking conservation to the next level (McMahan, 2010). All countries across the globe should be involved if positive results are to be recorded. The problems experienced in the past due to human activities should be applied to justify this kind of initiative. This approach would encourage more people to be involved and eventually make the planet a better place for all.
Jeff McMahan relies on scottsdalehigh64’s observation to propose a new strategy intended to replace carnivorous species with herbivorous ones. The move to get rid of meat-eating would mean that human beings would be valuing themselves while ignoring the plight of other creatures. This happens to be true since human beings are omnivorous and rely on meat as a common source of food. Similarly, they would be doing injustice to nonhuman animals that are carnivorous while damaging the integrity of the natural food chains. The idea would contribute to a unique problem whereby all plant eating animals would increase in numbers and eventually make the available natural resources inadequate for them (McMahan, 2010). This choice would eventually result in the extinction of both plant eaters and the available vegetation cover. These viewpoints explain why a renewed approach to the problems affecting the natural planet is recommendable. The ultimate aim should be to make the environment sustainable and capable of supporting both the current and future plant and animal species.
The global community is presently grappling with various challenges, such as climate change, pollution, and global warming. Analysts and scholars have presented numerous studied intended to shed more light about the causes and possible implications of these predicaments. The excited poster by KiRa01 appears to guide and encourage people and pursue their goals as if there was no tomorrow. From this statement, KiRa01believes in situation whereby individuals lead their lives without having any regard to consequences that might be encountered in the future (Ladouceur, 2019). Such an approach is frantic, reckless, and capable of disorienting the natural environment and eventually making it unavailable to future generations.
KiRa01 presents a negative attitude that should not be applied when focusing on the problematic issue of environmental degradation. However, the argument could be adopted and considered by applying ethical principles that has defined the field for years. Specifically, companies and governments have been observed to engage in actions that have been observed to affect the integrity of the natural environment. For example, industrialists pollute the environment in an effort to mass produce and market a wide range of products (Ladouceur, 2019). Similarly, governments tend to pursue projects that destabilize natural ecosystems in an effort to streamline transportation or promote economic activities. From an ethical perspective, people could live their lives as if there was no tomorrow and be able to put food on the table. If some ignore such an announcement by KiRa01, chances are high that other people would do the same thing in one way or the other.
Conclusion
Those who strive to protect the planet will be unable to achieve their goals since other people and companies have continued to disregard the integrity of the natural environment. If more people chose to follow this kind of advice, chances are high that government officials and policymakers could become more involved and ready to change the situation (Ladouceur, 2019). The advice could eventually become the real foundation for positive ethical approaches intended to protect the planet against any form of destruction and overuse of resources.
References
Brusseau, J. (2012). The business ethics workshop. Saylor Foundation.
Grossman, M. R. (2018). Climate change and the individual. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 66(1), 345-378. Web.
Ladouceur, R. (2019). Our fight against climate change. Canadian Family Physician, 65(11), 766. Web.
McMahan, J. (2010). The meat eaters. New York Times. Web.
Meier, B. M., Bustreo, F., &Gostin, L. O. (2022). Climate change, public health and human rights. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 13744-13757. Web.