"Tasks for Future Ecologists"
A new perception of time is needed to help predict the long term effects of climate change on the environment as well as on human social systems.
A new perception of time is needed to help predict the long term effects of climate change on the environment as well as on human social systems.
The article explores the possibilities of a new ethic that incorporates the phenomenon of environmental crisis and aims at changing people’s outlooks and behaviour.
Angelika Krebs concludes that discourse ethics is an anthropocentric moral theory.
Robin Attfield refutes the neo-Malthusian paradigm put forward by Holmes Rolston, arguing that authentic development will seldom conflict with nature conservation.
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Examining the concepts of “security” and “sustainability” Michael Redclift argues that, although the importance of the environment has been increasingly acknowledged since the 1970s, there has been a failure to incorporate other discourses surrounding “nature.”
Many philosophers consider favoritism toward humans in the context of moral choice to be a prejudice. While several terms are used for it, this article suggests that only the term “speciesism” be used. It attempts conceptual clarification with regard to other terms like “humanistic ethics” or “non-speciesist humanism.”
Peter Lucas argues that even though it is widely acknowledged that social theorists can make an important contribution to our understanding of environmental risk, there is however a danger that the current ascendancy of social theory will encourage a tendency to assimilate issues around environmental risk to those at stake in entrenched debates between realist and constructivist social theorists.
This paper compares the heuristic potential of three metaphorical paired concepts used in the relevant literature to characterise global relationships between the anthroposphere and the ecosphere.
In this paper Roger Fjellstrom argues that there is a lack of coherence between his ethical ideology and his actual ethical theory.