My personal philosophies do not run radically one way or the other. Rather, I see myself as one who is not yet sure of an opinion. One wearied by the many clamoring voices raised above their fellows in the din.

In my opinion, both sides have their pros and cons. The anthropocentric view supposedly takes a stand for humanities rights,  but seems to teach irresponsibility as well. By contrast, the bio centric stance would save the world by sacrificing human life and well being. Any middle ground is generally an excuse to sit back and do nothing.

Basically, I believe that each extreme can help to balance the other; that human mismanagement has left us in a precarious position but it is also immoral to play Ebeneezer Scrooge. Trying to “reduce the surplus population,” to hoard the planet for the “haves” at the expense of the “have nots” is not the answer either. Rather, a gradual shift towards equilibrium is necessary, a conscientious action rather than a forced lawful one.

If we’ve learned anything from past experience, humans acquire a set of morals only when it suits them.

I realize this is a bleak outlook, but I think it’s logical.

Advertisements