i LOVE u.. ENVIRONMENT

Human societies are organized based on anthropocentric ideas, humans come first and we generally only think of things from the perspective of human benefit and risk. Biocentric thinking is to place individual living organisms at the Centre, to argue on behalf of each organism. Ecocentric philosophy is to argue from the perspective of maintaining a whole ecosystem. These three basic philosophical standpoints are basic to the way human duties towards nature are organized in social obligations, and we can see signs of all of them in most modern societies as well as in individual thinking.
The inter-relatedness of all living organisms can be readily seen in most ecosystems. Ed Wilson (1984) proposed the theory Biophilia, saying that human beings inherently have a love for nature. He defined it as “the innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes”, noting that “to the degree that we come to understand other organisms, we will place greater value on them, and on ourselves”. It is still a matter of debate whether it is real or not (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Included in the hypothesis is that the human inclination to affiliate with life is inherent (biologically based), part of our species evolutionary heritage, associated with human competitive advantage and genetic fitness, likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual meaning and personal fulfillment, and that it has a self-interested basis for a human ethic of care and conservation of nature. Although many in modern society seem to destroy nature, it is suggested that this may merely be a result of an unnatural estrangement with nature.
One of the aspects of nature which people seem to love is a diversity of living organisms. The United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) declared “Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man”. As Mary Midgley (1983) wrote about the duty of care and responsibility in the use of the terms “motherland” and “fatherland”, “To insist that it is really only a duty to the exploiting human beings is not consistent with the emphasis often given to reverence for the actual trees, mountains, lakes, rivers and the life which are found there. A decision to inhibit this rich area of human love is a special maneuver for which reasons would need to be given, not a dispassionate analysis of existing duties and feelings.” Nature has an intrinsic value that it wants to survive (Rolston, 1993).
Sympathy with non-humans are seen in Buddhist writings, for example in the Hymn to Friendliness in Pali literature in Theravada Buddhism (Sutta Nipata), “May all be happy and safe! May all beings gain inner joy - all living beings whatsoever without exception, weak or strong, whether...seen or unseen, dwelling afar or near, born or yet unborn...may all beings gain inner joy.” An extension of love to other species could be considered under the concept of stewardship. It has often been neglected, but has a long history in many religions, being central to a Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation (Berry, 1995). There are various religious stories to support preservation of biological diversity, the most famous of which is the story of Noah, which is shared by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. Noah preserved all the domestic and wild animals from environmental catastrophe, a catastrophe that it says was caused by the actions of humans.
Throughout time many have considered nature has intrinsic value, but usually these calls have been neglected. Alfred North Whitehead (1925) in Science and the Modern World said “The western world is now suffering from the limited moral outlook of the three previous generations ... The two evils are: one, the ignoration of the true relation of each organism to its environment; and the other, the habit of ignoring the intrinsic worth of the environment which must be allowed its weight in any consideration of final ends”. The intrinsic value of nature can be argued by Christian and Buddhist values, as shown by Schumacher (1968, 1974). Yet, organized systems to protect the environment are still lacking in many countries. Other countries, like India, may have good laws but no organized enforcement, as seen in the pollution of ground water by the textile industry.
This widespread respect for nature and life was seen in the results of the International Bioethics Survey and the comments and pictures have been reproduced in the book Bioethics for the People by the People (Macer, 1994). By more research into the way people look at nature, we can find shared universal ideas about the relationship of humans to the earth and human responsibility to nature. In Japanese the word "inochi" can be translated as life, nature, the energy that holds things together. There are various images, as shown in comments about it in the surveys in Japan, but the inochi of every living organism is distinct, unique, and equal. The inochi departs when an organism dies, and is distinct from the idea of a soul. All organisms share the same amount of life, they are either dead or alive.
It has always been a challenge for ethics to define a “moral agent”. It is not necessarily someone who looks as we expect, rather we have to look at our criteria and discuss those who are included or excluded. Many of the anthropocentric arguments for human distinctiveness are based on the idea that humans are special because they have the power to use technology to transform their situation and environment. Moral agents might not have to be species who can manipulate the world as they like, reshaping it physically and genetically. It may be a species that takes pleasure in leaving it as it is, and not seeing joy in remoulding the environment.
Love preoccupies the human mind, and it would be naive of Homo sapiens to think it suddenly appeared overnight in our species. I have argued elsewhere that helping another species may be the least ambiguous sign of an all-giving love above the shadow of selfish genes (Macer, 1998). It is a fact of life that species often face each other in dilemmas and should we just pursue the benefit, immediate or long-term, of our species, or should we love other species? The concept of trans-species love should not be unfamiliar to many, who live with pets of other species, but is there something deeper than personal companionship? As Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man wrote in 1875, “It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals. How far in most cases they actually sympathize in the pains and pleasures of others, is more doubtful, especially with respect to pleasures.”
Human beings are organized into societies bound together by love, trust and mutual dependence. Language is central to social structure. While not many species can talk using a complex vocabulary, individual communication systems are found in other social mammals and birds, and they are used to discriminate between individuals. It is also clear that the language instinct is something we are born with, not a social construct we acquire after birth. Some other behavioral systems may also be shared with other animals.
The comparison of consciousness, communication, self-awareness and other mental and social qualities has lead many to organize a hierarchy within animal species, which says that we owe more duties to those animals higher on the ranking. A few argue for respect for all forms of life, as Albert Schweitzer (1966) said in Respect for Life. He argued for a reverence for all life. This approach makes no distinction between higher and lower life forms, saying that we can not judge other lifeforms in relation to ourselves. It makes the point that it is very difficult for us to understand or judge the importance of other living organisms in the natural order. The only reason for harming life he sees is necessity. However, what is "necessary" can vary widely between cultures.
A broader love for environment is found in the 1993 Parliament of the World Religions Declaration toward a Global Ethic (Kung, 1996). They wrote that an ethic already exists in the religious teachings of the world which can counter the global distress. They pointed out several directives that are found in all religions, including have respect for life. They extend this principle of respect to the lives of animals and plants. We can also see this principle in the protection given to national parks and wilderness areas, which are found in all countries but to different degrees.