A Philosophical Critique
Natural Environment
- - - - X
The environment can be better understood if we imagine a funnel. Where the broader concept would be everything that exists as Matter.
All that is empirically sustentable. Including your own body. We are part of the Environment. We were formed by the environment and when we die we return to the environment.
Other than that, there are no conditions for you to exist. And when I say you I don't mean your body, not even your memories, but something more internal and maybe even transcendent (not in the mystical sense).
Further down the funnel we have an Environment limited to Natural Environment (as opposed to artificial environment).
Natural as opposed to Artificial.
Being artificial anything that is invented, created or manipulated by humans.
Understand that the limitation of Natural by Artificial is already an artificial limitation. Because it's a limit that occurs only in the human mind. But Human beings are also part of the natural environment, being as natural as a tree. Therefore, we cannot really determine artificiality.
Such artificiality goes far from unnecessary. We have, for example, cultures where the term Environment does not make complete sense because they do not recognize the environment as external to man.
Now, in philosophical terms, beyond mere Environmental Conscience, I highlight the evidential inconcreture of the Matter. That is, we still cannot strictly prove the reality of the world and how it presents itself. See the 3 examples.
“
”
Here, David Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) introduced Immaterialism. For Berkeley, Matter (ample term for Environment) only exists in the condition of being perceived. In simple words, it only exists in our mind.
“
“Man created God in his own image”
”
Ludwig Feuerbach (July 28, 1804 – September 13, 1872) introduced the concept of Materialism. In his philosophy there is no God. No Metaphysis or even Ideas unconditioned to Matter. By this, all Human ideias come from the Environment.
“
“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play”
”
Both of the above ideas are highly questioned because of its Extremism, the most common is to follow the Common Sense as that I presented by Kant. Where both Matter helps in the formation of the mind, giving structure to it, and the mind conceives ideas independently of Matter, such as Time and Space.
But in no philosophical vision is it possible to fully know the matter (the thing in itself), much less is it a consensus that Science could do this.
To conclude, I make it clear that not even the concept of Environment is a consensus in Philosophy. Therefore, the same can only be treated from an ideological point of view, that is, adhering to one of the aforementioned views or adhering to common sense.
Oh Im naked but whatever now you guys see the real me, see me the way I came to this world. Maybe that is the way we should act. Return to primitivism.
Now guys do your part and fight against pollution of our planet. While I fight against the sun that also will explode and extinct human life. Unless we extinct yourself first.
Development
- - - - X
Similar to "Environment", the buzzword "Development" has a range of interpretations. Environment has only one definition but varies in interpretations. By definition, Development means addition (or even creation) of new resources or non-material goods.
Having in mind that non-material goods are not a source of pollution let's focus on material goods.
Humans cannot create material goods, we only can transform them. Usually from a primary state to a secondary or tertiary state. This transformation liberates particles in space. These particles could or could not be harmful to the planet. This is a fact. We can't deny it. And harmful may be a very vague term. In extreme cases, if we define harmful as any unnatural that minimally damages the natural environment we would conclude that it's impossible for man to produce or develop without being harmful to the planet, even if it is minimal.
Unnatural or Artificial would be anything that is fast enough so nature would not adapt, usually resulting in elimination of the biological environment.
Those changes commonly occur surrounding human societies. In such a way that even those not burned yet are already contaminated.
Especially by the systems of poisoning of insects. In general all human beings have similar biological systems in such a way that something that is harmful to an insect will be harmful in a lower level to a human. All humans are contaminated even those who have not yet been born. Because those chemical components cause harm especially to the fetus.
Sustainability
Sustainability would simply be the idea of developing without causing much damage to the planet. Which is an excellent idea. This must start in everyday life and end on an overall basis. For example you could use a bike instead of a car to go to work. But in extreme cases you could develop a way to lessen the pollution of oceans.
The only thing we shouldnt is to wait till the government solves our pollution problem. Government can't solve any problem.
To CONCLUDE the alternative here is that everything starts individually. From the definition of concepts such as Environment, Development and Sustainability to the practice, which can only be done starting from the individual. It can be polluting less in your small day-to-day actions, boycotting companies that pollute or, in the last case, it is even more effective, developing ideas that you can even sell to companies in a way that results in less pollution. Any action that is mandatory does not conscientize, but rather alienates.
