What are the positions on Global Warming?

All life deserves equal consideration in the fight against climate change

Question: What are the positions on Global Warming?
Position‹3 of 3: Radical environmentalists
Argument‹2 of 2: All life deserves equal consideration in the fight against climate change

Humans are but one component in a living environmental system. We must restructure our values and lives to consider the preservation of all living beings.

The argument

Deep ecology supports the idea that all life is inherently valuable, and it is from that starting point that its position on climate change follows. The first move is to reject a ranking. Deep ecology rejects the concept of humans as the pinnacle of the Earth, instead suggesting that we are simply one species in a rich, diverse environment. This is not a claim about how much damage humans do but about what standing they have: if value is inherent in life rather than conferred by usefulness to people, then other species are not resources whose worth depends on what they provide. Our role to play, unlike the controller and exploiter of the planet that we are now, is simply to be one with nature and to partake in a shared collection with the animals and plants around us. The second move applies that standard to the present order. Deep ecology holds that diversity of life is a wonderful thing and that the industrial world as of now disrespects that principle. The charge is directed at the arrangement itself rather than at its excesses — an economy organised around extraction treats the living world as material, and will keep doing so however efficiently it operates, because the assumption that humans sit above the rest is built into it. The conclusion is correspondingly radical. Deep ecologists support returning to a way of life that is simple and in touch with nature. They argue that we should do away with the current industry and technology, and draw on indigenous or aboriginal practices to utilize and respect nature while acting as simply one part of the rich global environment. On this view, a response to climate change that leaves the human-supremacist premise intact addresses a symptom rather than the cause.

Premises

[P1]All life has inherent value, and humans are merely one species among many in a diverse global ecosystem rather than its rightful controllers. [P2] The current industrial and technological order treats nature as something to exploit, disrespecting biological diversity and driving climate change. [P3] Returning to simpler, indigenous-inspired ways of living would let humans coexist as equal participants in nature rather than its dominators. [C] Therefore, the fight against climate change requires giving all life equal consideration and dismantling the human-supremacist industrial system.

Counter-arguments

Technology has made our quality of life better, and even if it hurts the environment, we are gifted with superiority and position in nature above other species that we should utilize for our own benefit. It is simply not practical or needed to live so connected with nature.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Humans are more technologically advanced than any other species, so we are more superior.

Framing

Every species on Earth is inherently equal and valuable; diversity should be promoted above all else.