Name: Richmore Matereke
Student Number: 60657502
Sustainability: My Ecological Footprint
When I took ecological footprint, the lifestyle I am living occupies 3.9 hectares of the Earth’s productive land and should be improved by a capacity of 2.1 planets per year. If everyone lived the same lifestyle, it will need about 2.1 planets yearly to provide for the human population. I contribute towards the environment up keep by purchasing organic food, I take less red meats and by means eat seasonal foods. I drive a carpool to work every weekly to save on fuel, regularly serviced, and the tyres properly inflated driving within the speed limit. Low energy saving appliances at my home and minimum use of power equipment, and yet my footprint results say I need 2.1 earths at least to sustain the human population. I wanted the results to be much lower and in deed results were a wakeup call on environmental protection.
This does not change immediately, it can also be of help creating awareness that could make people more aware and being considerate in use of the environmental resources at their disposal. The quiz challenged the way I think and what it means to be more environmental friendly.
Considering our ecological footprint can change the world. Therefore, I see it necessary to create awareness to the crisis we find ourselves in. It is a responsibility of every citizen to collectively act all over the world. This assessment opened my eyes of the things we did not pay attention to and I believe we should create awareness.
“It’s all in the outcome – Consequentialism”
The rapid rate of the population growth in the world for the past has simultaneously increased and that has caused panic about the future. The amount of resources needed for human satisfaction on basic needs is very big. Conformity, the satisfaction for basic needs cannot be only the purpose of good life. Humans needs already is over the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. The glob is in an ecological overshoot, we turn resources into waste quicker than waste can be reversed back into resources. To have an ecological sustainable community need a virtual transformation in the values and beliefs, that govern our relationships with natural resources and nature. The world should admit to the human behavioral and address those attributes to appropriate a mutual understanding. As stated in the learning unit that one possible solution is a wipe out to bring the available footprint up to the current consumption, reducing the number of people on planet Earth, to sustain various consumption levels. By killing, or as mentioned in assignment 3, “by the act of letting 20 000 children die every day is justified on the basis of the good of the whole species” would be wrong from my angle. A utilitarian view, there is no moral between killing and letting die, and not when death can be easily avoided by our actions. Utilitarianism is described as a tradition in which actions are judged as good or bad based on the aggregate good or bad which that act would lead to. We should try to reach for a zero-population growth and this can only be achieved by having several different approaches, e.g. avoiding early parenting, this will slow down the population growth. Marriage age could be raised to drop the percentage fertility required to achieve zero population growth etc.
“Fair’s Fair – Distributive Justice”
Increase Production technology to increase yield of food, thus not increase total land used or finding another planet.
We would think it to be wrong or unfair delaying childbirth, as mentioned, what will be wrong with nature? To delay conception might bear a better world or a world with higher levels of overall well-being. By producing a small number of children which could have a higher quality of life rather than having a large number of children whose lives are barely worth living. It might be utilitarian to think that morality requires acting for the impersonal aggregate good, the world can be a better place where people decide to delay conception, rather to have a world where people reproduce many children.
For this generation to preserve the opportunity to grow and sustain social institutions, and this what should gain a level of each primary goods on a person’s list, enough to provide basic human needs to secure enough beyond minimum. We should save enough amount of our resources as guarantee to the economic future generations. If I am to pull on the veil of ignorance, not knowing whether my children would have a high-quality life, or a life that is barely worth living, would I accept the fact that we must preserve our resources and the economic value they have, to reap the benefits for my children? My personal answer is yes. If not, then there will be no resources left for future generations to live a high-quality life.
“Greenies – Environmental Ethics”
” Granting a tree, a mountain and a bird intrinsic value is the first step towards an ecocentric world and a better planet.” Humans are the carriers of intrinsic value and, therefore, all other living things are there to sustain human’s existence. It resulted from human’s greediness and led to greater changes in nature, as humans, we have a responsibility on all biological life existence, because we can think and perceive. We have a huge responsibility to innate of all living beings, regardless of their worthiness to humans. Our anthropocentric perception is the reason for the environmental crisis we are in, from water problems and lack of biological diversity. People cut down trees for houses and furniture and inborn and its value is ignored. Deforestation means less absorption of carbon dioxide, leading to more greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere. Making environmental decisions to satisfy both anthropocentrism and ecocentrism is not easy. As humans, we should always consider the consequences of our actions when it comes to our natural resources that have been subjected for us for our benefit. Our natural resources should always be a priority.