The question about pros and cons of the anthropocentric view of value always generates a lot of discussion and hand-wringing. It seems like a philosophical question, so students tend to search for deep meaning. What I'm looking for is fairly simple, but I don't want to give it away.
Here's a hint from today's local paper.
2 comments:
Yes, the anthropocentric view can be analyzed in many different fashions but as i posted for on blackboard i think sometimes we think too little too late. Avoiding the whole truth when numbers are down is what humans like to do. We like to see depletion it almost seems so we can come in and stabilize just too see in most cases rapid decrease when sustainability occurs. Over time things evolve and die out. Its evolution but we need to find an efficient way to maintain what we have.
I too read the article and considered writing about it for my negative externality post. From the article, I didn't know exactly if we were not at least partially responsible for the decision making that has created the endangerment.
It did resonate that the flower holds nonextractive value to the ecosystem and for our viewing pleasure.
Post a Comment