Prompt 1: Anthropocentric EnvironmentalismAccording to Genesis, “human beings occupy a privileged position in all creation” (DesJardins 98). Of course, those who adhered to Western Christian philosophy also took this position, considering themselves the closest thing to the Creator, since they were created in His image. Therefore, the Western world has flourished by living without much concern for the environmental well-being of the planet. Today we are realizing that the irresponsible way in which we have used resources and polluted the Earth has caused significant damage to the ecosystem in which we live. Based on the new circumstances created by previous generations, we must take care of the environment for the well-being of future generations, for the knowledge obtainable by having a healthy environment, and for the well-being of people living today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The damage done to Earth's environment today will impact that of generations to come. According to Man's Responsibility for Nature by John Passmore, “And now we have discovered that the disposal of waste in the sea or in the air, the destruction of ecosystems, the procreation of large families, the depletion of resources, constitute harm to others, present and future” (DesJardins 99). Each of these activities presented by Passmore is a selfish desire of the human community. Disposing of waste irresponsibly is still convenient and less expensive than the alternative today. This is yet another example of humans seeking instant gratification, instead of taking a responsible course of action. However, an anthropocentric idea would discourage putting current desires above the health of the Earth for future people to use. “We can identify the practice of extending moral standing to include future humans or to develop new human rights as anthropocentric extensionalism” (Desjardins 104). This idea is a reason to protect the environment from a human-centered point of view. From a deontological perspective, “Blackstone further argues that we cannot realize any of those fundamental human rights that arise from our nature as free and rational beings – equality, liberty, happiness, life and property – without a safe, healthy and livable environment. ” (Des Jardens 101). If human activity continues as it currently does, the Earth will no longer be able to support human flourishing. There is currently “enough oil to last the world 53.3 years at current production rates” (Smith 2). Not only does the consumption of fossil fuels poison the environment, but the next generation will no longer be able to rely on them as a source of energy as they have in the past. Due to the polluting qualities of fossil fuel use and lack of supply, humans must turn to So, out of duty to humanity's future, the global community must come together to reduce their environmental footprint. Past and present human activity is the cause of the environmental crisis occurring today. In relation to the animal kingdom, global warming, the introduction of exotic species and the conversion of habitats are pushing the extinction of species (“The Extinction Crisis” 1). While Earth's current human inhabitants are not entirely responsible for the damage done to the ecosystem, living people are the only beings who can attempt to repair the damage. As rational thinkers concerned about the well-being of our home planet, we must recognize that if we do nothing to solve these problems, no other organism will. As human beings, we areunique in the way we perceive our life. Homo sapiens is the only species known as a moral agent. To be a moral agent “is to be a being capable of acting with reference to right and wrong, and rationality is often associated with this capacity” (“Moral Agency” 1). If an invasive species of worm begins to devastate all the trees in a forest, diminishing food sources for other animals native to the area, we as moral agents can try to exterminate the worm. Moral agents are able to reason that what the worms are doing is harming the ecosystem of other animals. Therefore, they can maximize the utility of the environment by killing the worm and protecting primary and secondary human resources. By ridding the area of ​​the single invasive species, diverse groups of animals that rely on the ecosystem's stability can thrive again, helping humans by preserving biodiversity. Of course, extinction “occurs at a natural background rate of about one in five species per year. Scientists estimate that we are currently losing species at a rate 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with dozens going extinct every day. It could be a truly scary future, with 30-50% of all species likely to face extinction by mid-century” (“The Extinction Crisis” 1). Because of the huge discrepancy between the context and actual extinction rates, the rest of the community of life is taking a hit. Biodiversity offers humans a greater variety of resources to choose from to best serve humanity. By definition, the world of scientific understanding is not complete. There will always be more to know, which is especially evident when considering the ground gained over the past century. Throughout human history, we have discovered that several naturally occurring chemicals have medicinal value to humans. For example, humans have been using the gel from aloe vera leaves to heal damaged skin for thousands of years. Over the years we have discovered myriad uses for different things in nature, and this expansion of understanding continues every day. It is a fact that there are still some undiscovered medicinal uses for natural organisms, which can change humanity. When paired with the scientific method, the sustained growth of technology will continue to provide humanity with more tools to find diverse uses outside of the natural world. However, if we do not protect biodiversity, we will limit the variety of organisms to which scientists can apply research and new technologies. This may seem like a weak reason to protect the environment, but keep in mind that some predictions predict that half of all species could become extinct in our lifetime. Half is for science, this decimates the amount of potential organisms to study to see if we can extract or create something that can help human society. Sometimes, the instrumental value of organisms is not immediately apparent and requires further study to fully utilize them. For example, there may be a plant that contains a compound that blocks the growth of cancer cells. If we let this species go extinct before we have the opportunity to study its capabilities, humans may never be able to reap the benefits of the plant. Especially from an anthropocentric point of view, having a damaged environment can cause a direct negative impact on humans. I am currently alive. The conditions necessary for the Earth to support human life are very specific. Global warming can harm humans in many ways. The increase in global temperature due to