Question : Does the right to property bring economic disparity & threaten human fraternity. Discuss?
(2010)
Answer : Nature has created difference among people, among regions and among situations. These differences are known as natural differences and are taken generally as granted. The conditions of these natural differences are also called as constraints. However, man has always made efforts to minimize these constraints to advance on the path of development. On the other hand the differences created by man on account of social, economic, political, religious and cultural aspects are called not as differences but inequalities or disparities. These disparities are called respectively as social, economic, political, religious and cultural disparities. Among all the economic disparities are critical in nature and are the issues of great concern in the modern world. Economic disparities help other disparities be widened. Therefore, if economic disparities are mitigated, other disparities are automatically narrowed. An economic disparity can be defined as a condition in which a person or persons though legally having equal rights is or are but for economic reasons deprived to some extent from available opportunities of fulfilling economic, social, political, cultural and/or religious needs. In every economy the people have become divided into two separate groups – the poor group and the prosperous group. The poor mass comprises the substantial majority of the world population and there has become a big gulf between poor and prosperous or rich people regarding wealth, wage, education and income. Therefore, at present the economic disparities mean deprivation or privation of a large mass and are thence taken as great evil and a challenge to the public welfare through economic development or growth. Though the absolute economic equality or parity is nowhere in the world. Neither it ever existed nor is it desirable. Whatever the socialists emphasize or loudly advocate, the absolute economic parity will never be achieved and if achieved, it will slash and shatter the economic system. All the same, steps towards the lesser widened and tolerable level of economic disparities is not only desirable but also a pressing need of today’s economic development or growth programmers in that the present condition of largely widened un-tolerable economic disparities especially in the developing countries is making the life of a large mass of poor population hellish whereby the very objective of raising high the public life standard is being forfeited. This disparity divides the society making a hierarchy lowest. Lower, high and higher. This prevents the feeling of fraternity. This is all due to property rights not regulated by a proper legal system. Property is the basic need of life but it should always be characterized by some kind of orderliness. There should be a check and balance on the property an individual owns. Property within a certain limit is always good. But the moment it goes beyond a certain limit it creates a division in the society. It gives privileges to one over the other and thus limits one’s freedom and leads to social inequality. In that case underprivileged fail to act the way they should and gets deprived of their basic fundamental rights. This blocks the road to fraternity.
Question : Examine the central issues in the philosophy of ecology. Are these concerns merely utilitarian? Discuss.
(2005)
Answer : Eco-philosophy or the philosophy of ecology is a set of philosophies interested in environment, nature and animals. Yet, though the term eco-philosophy is coined recently, the ideas about nature can be traced back to ancient Greece. According to Aristotle a human, a creature with higher level of consciousness has a right to use animals and nature as he will, for his own good. In the Middle Ages people thought nature was created by God and thus people should respect nature. This view changed alongside the secularization of Enlightment. God was excluded from the equation and finally the Industrial Revolution gave means to control nature. In the wake of capitalism nature was diminished into a commodity. Nowadays we recognize many risks threaten our lives and the state of nature. Global warming and risks alike have raised theories that try to perceive moral relation between man and nature.
According to utilitarianism nature has no other meaning but to be a source of human wealth. Utilists believe that men have right to use nature as they will and development of sciences will solve potential problems like pollution. A man is in the center of humanism. But instead of material wealth humanism advocates
Bio-centric thinking does not view human as a higher species. The theory says that all animals, including homo-sapiens, are equal. At least all animals have intrinsic value. A hardcore view is called vitalism. However, there are varieties. An advocate of specism thinks that human is more important than other species but other animals are valuable too. A hardcore bio-centrist would blame a specist being a racist! Animal rights were popularized by Peter Singer. His main point is that we must not hurt animals. There has been a lot of debate if we should not hurt any animals or just those that definitely can feel pain i.e. animals that have nervous system similar to humans. At this time it looks like there’s a consensus that we should not harm vertebrates.
Environmental ethics is a major part of environmental philosophy which considers the ethical relationship between human beings and the natural environment. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including law, sociology, theology, economics, ecology and geography. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:
Should we continue to cut forests for the sake of human consumption?
Should we continue to propagate, when our planet is already 2/3 above its maximum carrying capacity?
Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles, depleting fossil fuel resources while the technology exists to create zero emission vehicles?
What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?
Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the (perceived or real) convenience of humanity?
Interesting developmental fact about the western philosophical interest in Ecology, Biology and the major life sciences, as well as Environmental Philosophy and the study of nature in general is that in western Philosophy “Nature” as a theme begins in earnest within early 20th Century Philosophical discussions, but Nature as the subject matter is quickly eclipsed by an intense fascination with the language used to talk about Nature. For two thirds of the century questions about language dominate the philosophical arena. Not until the 1970s does the discussion eventually gather around a completely demystified nature, one considered to be a Cultural Construct. Before the very notion of “Man’s Environment” becomes problematic, Environmental philosophy must downplay the gender critique and center its discussion in relation to the habits and anomalies of living beings as they become, themselves, cultural constructs in the way bodily systems and functions are described and defined and eventually applied to some concept of Nature, one that either lingers problematically haunted by any number of metaphysical notions, or a new one born from some collection and rearrangement of previous studies.
The eight points of the ‘Deep Ecology Platform’ presents its basic principles:
The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has intrinsic value. The value of non-human life forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.
Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.
Significant change of life conditions for the better require change in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
Those who subscribe to the forgoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
It is arguable that while the exoteric form of religions differs widely, on an esoteric level they are all similar. I believe that the exoteric expression, which often refers to an existing ideology, has generally been formulated for mass appeal, and provides a simplified version of the inner truth revealed at the esoteric level. We might say that (exoteric) religion is an ideology, and (exoteric) spirituality is a process. Religions and spiritual beliefs that see the sacred as immanent are generally more environmentally sound. With the current focus on environmental issues, many mainstream religions have been keen to emphasize their eco-credentials. But historically most Western religions have paid little attention to the notion of a sacred Earth.
Many mainstream religions portray God as a transcendent being, somehow beyond this world. This is taken by many as the key to their lack of ecological awareness. A theology with a transcendent deity tends to be dualistic, making a sharp division between spirit and matter, with the material world seen as inferior. One more approach is eco-feminism which examines the connections between the oppression of women and environmental destruction. They both result from a social hierarchy that allows, if not encourages, the abuse or destruction of anything or anyone who is low status. Eco-feminist philosophy also has strong ties to religion and spiritualism.Question : What do you understand by Progress? Have human beings made progress in all fields of their activity? Discuss.
(2005)
Answer : To advance toward a higher or better stage or improve steadily is called progress. In other words any change for the better is termed as progress. Here are some aspects of recent world material progress that we expect to continue.
Larger quantity and variety of available food. In recent years famines have only occurred as a result of wars.
Better health. Almost all countries are experiencing an increase in lifespan and a reduction in the fraction of their time people spend ill. A recent study, Science 2000 Sept. 29, of the maximum length of life in Sweden gives the oldest age of death in 1990s as 108 vs. 101 in the 1860s. 72.5 percent of this 7 year advance is due to lengthened survival of people who have already reached age 70. While the study was confined to Sweden which has very good birth and death statistics, the authors believe that the phenomenon is common to industrialized countries.
The elimination of child labor. It is hard for us to imagine the evil of putting children to work in the coal mines at age six. Macaulay’s History of England, published in the 1850s, has considerable information about the reductions in child labor in England that had been achieved by his time.
Shorter work time. Increased productivity has permitted this. The improvement is both in free hours per week and increased years available for education and retirement.
Improved housing. More space and more privacy.
Individual mobility from the automobile. Since that is so often attacked as undesirable, an essay on cars provides a detailed defense.
Increased availability of material goods of all kinds.
Increased independence of old people.
Increased personal mobility.
Increased equality. This is often disputed, but it can be partly verified by looking at the changes in expected length of life in different groups in the population.
The progress described above is due to technological advance and the social advances that have permitted the technological advances to be used. Technology is available worldwide, but its effectiveness in raising the standard of living has depended on social achievements - a market economy, peace and the rule of law, education and not letting economic parasitism get too much out of hand. Here are some of the important technological advances.
Transportation. This has made possible a world market in almost everything (except water). Before the transportation advances most commodities were localized products. It has also permitted worldwide travel and encouraged people in one country to copy aspects of other people’s ways they came to admire. A disadvantage is that foreign countries aren’t as exotic as they used to be, and tourists, including anthropologists, complain about this a lot.
Industrial and agricultural productivity. This permitted going from 12 hour days to 8 hour days and from a 6 day work week to 5. It also permitted more years spent in education and in retirement. See this advertisement from a 1921 issue of Successful Farming, which claims that buying a tractor will allow a farmer to keep his boy in school instead of taking him out to help with the farm work..
Medical advances.
In the late nineteenth century and up to World War I, there was a general opinion that progress in human institutions had accompanied scientific and technological progress. World War I and the other social disasters of the first half of this century changed this view.Moreover there really had been permanent social progress. It was just that there still remained large social dangers. Though there still remain large social dangers, but there has been real social progress. The collapse of the Soviet Union greatly reduced these dangers, and the rise of Muslim fanaticism has only increased them slightly.
Effective local government, governmental services are provided, and local warfare is prevented. In money and the market economy the limited liability business corporation and its toleration and regulation by law are quite visible. Free, universal and compulsory education is increasingly available all over the world. Condemnation and elimination of slavery has been achieved. In ancient times, moralists often made it a principle that slaves should be treated humanely, but no-one said that there shouldn’t be slaves at all. The Anti-Slavery League was created in Britain in the 18th century, and slavery was suppressed in the modern world by 1869 - lasting longer in backward countries.
That even the highest officials of government are subject to the law is a recent idea. For example, Confucius, Christ, Buddha and Machiavelli all give advice to rulers but didn’t imagine them subordinate to the law. The English first established this in the seventeenth century. The ancient Greeks made some efforts in this direction. Democracy was first established and partly debugged under conditions in which it was not universal. Thus the Magna Carta of 1215 established rights of barons relative to King John which neither party had any intention of extending to anyone else. Doubtless it is moral blemish that universal political equality was not their goal, but nevertheless we owe a lot to those barons.
But these aspects of progress are partly unreal. More to come, including statistics about infant mortality, life expectancy, hours worked, etc. Besides these extensions of past improvements we can expect some entirely new benefits from technology. Human history is one of gradually accelerating progress punctuated by disasters like big wars and worsening of climate and also periods of stagnation. It is only since the 18th century that a person would experience enough progress in his lifetime to regard continued progress as a normal state of society. The first half of the 20th century experienced three major disasters - World War I, a consequence of nationalism (mainly German), Hitlerism, and communism. These encouraged the perpetually existing beliefs that the world is getting worse. There are always good trends in some aspect of country’s life and bad trends in others. Many bad trends are predicted in advance by some but don’t get reversed till they actually cause pain. Science permits more to be addressed in advance, but inaccurate anticipation can be a source of instability.
Question : What do you understand by the philosophy of ecology? In this context, discuss its main concerns.
(2004)
Answer : Eco-philosophy or the philosophy of ecology is a set of philosophies interested in environment, nature and animals. Yet, though the term eco-philosophy is coined recently, the ideas about nature can be traced back to ancient Greece. According to Aristotle a human, a creature with higher level of consciousness has a right to use animals and nature as he will, for his own good. In the Middle Ages people thought nature was created by God and thus people should respect nature. This view changed alongside the secularization of Enlightment. God was excluded from the equation and finally the Industrial Revolution gave means to control nature. In the wake of capitalism nature was diminished into a commodity. Nowadays we recognize many risks threaten our lives and the state of nature. Global warming and risks alike have raised theories that try to perceive moral relation between man and nature.
According to utilitarianism nature has no other meaning but to be a source of human wealth. Utilists believe that men have right to use nature as they will and development of sciences will solve potential problems like pollution. A man is in the center of humanism. But instead of material wealth humanism advocates
Bio-centric thinking does not view human as a higher species. The theory says that all animals, including homo-sapiens, are equal. At least all animals have intrinsic value. A hardcore view is called vitalism. However, there are varieties.An advocate of specism thinks that human is more important than other species but other animals are valuable too. A hardcore bio-centrist would blame a specist being a racist!Animal rights were popularized by Peter Singer. His main point is that we must not hurt animals. There has been a lot of debate if we should not hurt any animals or just those that definitely can feel pain i.e. animals that have nervous system similar to humans. At this time it looks like there’s a consensus that we should not harm vertebrates.
Environmental ethics is a major part of environmental philosophy which considers the ethical relationship between human beings and the natural environment. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including law, sociology, theology, economics, ecology and geography. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:
Interesting developmental fact about the western philosophical interest in Ecology, Biology and the major life sciences, as well as Environmental Philosophy and the study of nature in general is that in western Philosophy “Nature” as a theme begins in earnest within early 20th Century Philosophical discussions, but Nature as the subject matter is quickly eclipsed by an intense fascination with the language used to talk about Nature. For two thirds of the century questions about language dominate the philosophical arena. Not until the 1970s does the discussion eventually gather around a completely demystified nature, one considered to be a Cultural Construct. Before the very notion of “Man’s Environment” becomes problematic, Environmental philosophy must downplay the gender critique and center its discussion in relation to the habits and anomalies of living beings as they become, themselves, cultural constructs in the way bodily systems and functions are described and defined and eventually applied to some concept of Nature, one that either lingers problematically haunted by any number of metaphysical notions, or a new one born from some collection and rearrangement of previous studies.
The eight points of the ‘Deep Ecology Platform’ presents its basic principles:
It is arguable that while the exoteric form of religions differs widely, on an esoteric level they are all similar. I believe that the exoteric expression, which often refers to an existing ideology, has generally been formulated for mass appeal, and provides a simplified version of the inner truth revealed at the esoteric level. We might say that (exoteric) religion is an ideology, and (exoteric) spirituality is a process. Religions and spiritual beliefs that see the sacred as immanent are generally more environmentally sound. With the current focus on environmental issues, many mainstream religions have been keen to emphasize their eco-credentials. But historically most Western religions have paid little attention to the notion of a sacred Earth.
Many mainstream religions portray God as a transcendent being, somehow beyond this world. This is taken by many as the key to their lack of ecological awareness. A theology with a transcendent deity tends to be dualistic, making a sharp division between spirit and matter, with the material world seen as inferior. One more approach is eco-feminism which examines the connections between the oppression of women and environmental destruction. They both result from a social hierarchy that allows, if not encourages, the abuse or destruction of anything or anyone who is low status. Eco-feminist philosophy also has strong ties to religion and spiritualism.
Question : What does eco-philosophy mean? Discuss in this context the central thesis of ecological humanism and also explain the distinction between ecological understanding and ecological awareness.
(2003)
Answer : During the last thirty years philosophers in the West have critiqued the underlying assumptions of Modern philosophy in relation to the natural world. This development has been part of an ongoing expansion of philosophical work involving cross cultural studies of world views or ultimate philosophies. Since philosophical studies in the West have often ignored the natural world, and since most studies in ethics have focused on human values, those approaches which emphasize eco-centric values have been referred to as eco-philosophy. Just as the aim of traditional philosophy is sophia or wisdom, so the aim of eco-philosophy is ecosophy or ecological wisdom.
The Practice of eco-philosophy is an ongoing, comprehensive, deep inquiry into values, the nature of the world and the self.The mission of eco-philosophy is to explore a diversity of perspectives on human-Nature contexts and interrelationships. It fosters deeper and more harmonious relationships between place, self, community and the natural world. This aim is furthered by comparing the diversity of ecosophies from which people support the platform principles of the global, long range, deep ecology movement. According to Arne Naess ecosophy means a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy as a kind of sofia (or) wisdom, is openly normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and hypotheses concerning the state of affairs in our universe. Wisdom is policy wisdom, prescription, not only scientific description and prediction. The details of an ecosophy will show many variations due to significant differences concerning not only the ‘facts’ of pollution, resources, population, etc. but also value priorities.”
In 1973 the name “deep ecology movement” was introduced into environmental literature by Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Professor Arne Naess. Environmentalism emerged as a popular grass roots political movement in the 1960’s with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. Those already involved in conservation/preservation efforts were joined by many others concerned about the detrimental environmental impacts of modern industrial technology. The longer range, older elements of the movement included writers and activists like Thoreau and Muir, whereas the newer mainstream awareness was closer to the wise conservation philosophy of people like Gifford Pinchot. Naess discussed the longer-range background of the ecology movement and its connection with respect for Nature and the inherent worth of other beings. As a mountaineer who had climbed all over the world, Naess enjoyed the opportunity to observe political and social action in diverse cultures. Both historically and in the contemporary movement
Naess saw two different forms of environmentalism, not necessarily incompatible with one another. One he called the “long-range deep ecology movement” and the other, the “shallow ecology movement.” The word “deep” in part referred to the level of questioning of our purposes and values, when arguing in environmental conflicts. The “deep” movement involves deep questioning, right down to fundamentals.
In his eco-philosophy framework for cross cultural analysis of grass roots social-political movements, Naess distinguishes between four levels of discourse. In forming cross cultural global movements some general consensus develops that focuses the movement through platform principles (as is the case for many movements—literary, philosophical, social, political, etc.), such as the principles of social justice, or the principles of peace and nonviolence, or the principles for the deep ecology movement (DEM). Movements so described have their principles emerge from the bottom up and are thus called grass roots movements (as in the Gandhian tradition), not top down power over hierarchies . As the root of ecological philosophy shows, the aim of eco-philosophy is a total or comprehensive view of our human and individual situation. Comprehensive includes the whole global context with us in it, sharing a world with diverse cultures and beings.
Ecological humanism is, in essence, a communitarian view. Human beings, it argues, pursue the developmental ideal of becoming fully integrated persons within community contexts. The communities involved are of two kinds. First, there are socio-cultural ones, providing institutions within which people can benefit from, and contribute to various activities. These range from activities associated with production and environmental transformation that provide food, shelter and various material goods on the one hand, to the possibilities of religious communion, sporting activities and artistic and cultural modes of expression that allow for the exploration of human consciousness and creativity on the other.
But all socio-cultural activity involves the background of natural surroundings of sea and lake, mountain and forest, desert and garden and all the multiplicity of terrestrial ecosystems. Humans are inextricably intertwined with other dimensions in ecological communities, and these are the second kind of context within which we have a place that offers us modes of expression and potential for exploring our own personhood. It follows from the communitarian aspect of life, that human beings are not isolated beings. In particular, we can identify two important respects in which what we are is a function of our place in communities. At a basic, biological level, we are the result of evolutionary processes, processes which have given rise to beings with capacities for choice and deliberation that far exceed those of any other animal. Evolution has, in this way, been liberating, favouring the neural complexity that underpins our higher capacities. But it is hard to see how we can admire the human being in all its complexity, without also having some admiration for the process which produced it. Those religious traditions that tell creation stories enable us to think of humans as appearing by a separate creative act from those that produced our surroundings. But once we recognize the continuities between ourselves and other creatures, we can hardly value the human while disvaluing all other life.
At a second socio-cultural level, we are marked by the society around us, and our moral and personal development is, at least to some extent, according to the agenda set by that society. At the level of our families, our relations with others impose the moral duties associated with parenthood, while in the workplace; we can be better or worse employees, managers or workmates. Each location in the web of social relations ties the individual at that location to others, and one’s passage through various social institutions is a significant part of one’s history. Each of us represents, as it were, a unique path through the society in which he or she lives. In this way, each of us, while being historically individual and unique, also embodies community projects, community values and community ideals. The dynamics of socio-cultural life in some way parallel the dynamics of nature.
Historically, individual populations have become adapted to various environments, while yet these environments have undergone change in response to the arrival of new populations or modifications in existing ones. The relation of living populations to their abiotic surroundings may also be less passive than was thought in the 19th century. Some biologists now believe that systems of living things are capable of resisting some changes in their abiotic surroundings, and of modifying - to a degree - their surroundings in order to keep life alive. This, if true, may be connected in important ways to biological diversity. The parallels between the natural and socio-cultural contexts in which we live suggest a further important point. Whereas most living things merely respond to the challenges of their surroundings by virtue of their innate, naturally selected traits and dispositions, humans occupy a realm in which such responses can be debated. Humans are moved by considerations of value, of what ought and ought not to be done, while, as far as we know, there are no other animals thus constrained. Beavers can easily flood whole valleys, by their feats of engineering just as humans can. Only the humans can discuss whether they ought to be building a dam, or clear-felling a slope. Since our lives are community-lives, our ethical considerations are also context-sensitive.
As some optimistic thinkers of the 18th century held, it would be fine if there was a general agreement between individual self-interest and the good of society. It is not as simple as this, and unlikely ever to be so. Nonetheless, the institutional frameworks available to us provide all ranges of possibilities for action that is at once self-developing and of value to the groups within which we operate. There is no reason to believe, as some 18th century thinkers did, that essentially selfish action by individuals operating according to their own preferences will automatically be for the good of society. On the contrary, this particular thought is the root of many of our current problems.
Question : Role of Scientific Temper in good life.
(2002)
Answer : Pandit Nehru used to say that what his country required more than anything else was just that—the scientific temper. We need to know exactly what is meant by this expression. Broadly interpreted, it means having a realistic attitude. In one of his prayers, the Prophet is recorded as having asked God to enable him to see things just as they are. This clearly indicates that having the scientific temper, or pursuing a scientific line of thought, is the equivalent of coming to grips with reality. We live in a world which has an existence of its own, functioning according to its own immutable principles. Scientific thinking is, therefore, extremely important for the successful development of both the individual and the nation. The secret of success is to see the world around us with an open mind and to acquire an understanding of the laws of nature. This approach will produce positive results, enabling one to form correct judgments about things as they actually are. This is what is meant by having the scientific temper. In this world, the real achievers are those who, by fostering this bent of mind, are able to confront the truth.
Scientific thinking, largely, is a question of ratiocination based on facts. This applies equally to the world of matter and to human affairs. For instance, if you have to build a bridge over a river, the science of engineering will tell you to build it from iron and not from clay. Similarly, if you want to harvest a particular crop, the science of horticulture will tell you not only that you must sow the seeds of that crop (and not for example plastic pellets!) but also how to irrigate and fertilize them. Similar principles apply in the human world. Good results can be achieved only if full account is taken of all of the relevant facts. Failing this, the desired outcome will remain elusive. If, for example, you want someone to be your supporter, the science of psychology will tell you that you must activate his conscience and appeal to his better feelings. But if, on the contrary, you speak or act in such a way that his ego is hurt, you will turn him into an enemy. If you want to receive something from someone, you shall have to become in his eyes a giver, and not just a beneficiary, for it is a matter of common experience that most people are used to giving only to those from whom they receive. Then, if we aspire to a position of honour, we had best be unassuming in demeanour, because it is the modest man and not the egoist who makes the greatest impression on the better side of human nature. It is the unpretentious individual who is most likely, therefore, to attain to a position of honour and prestige.
Question : Concept of sustainable Development.
(2000)
Answer : Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but in the indefinite future. The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. Ecologists have pointed to the “limits of growth” and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy” in order to address environmental concerns. The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability. The sustainable development debate is based on the assumption that societies need to manage three types of capital (economic, social, and natural), which may be non-substitutable and whose consumption might be irreversible. Daly for example, points to the fact that natural capital can not necessarily be substituted by economic capital.
While it is possible that we can find ways to replace some natural resources, it is much more unlikely that they will ever be able to replace eco-system services, such as the protection provided by the ozone layer, or the climate stabilizing function of the Amazonian forest. In fact natural capital, social capital and economic capital are often complementarities. A further obstacle to substitutability lies also in the multi-functionality of many natural resources. Forests, for example, do not only provide the raw material for paper (which can be substituted quite easily), but they also maintain biodiversity, regulate water flow, and absorb CO2. Another problem of natural and social capital deterioration lies in their partial irreversibility. The loss in biodiversity, for example, is often definite. The same can be true for cultural diversity.
For example with globalization advancing quickly the number of indigenous languages is dropping at alarming rates. Moreover, the depletion of natural and social capital may have non-linear consequences. Consumption of natural and social capital may have no observable impact until a certain threshold is reached. A lake can, for example, absorb nutrients for a long time while actually increasing its productivity. However, once a certain level of algae is reached lack of oxygen causes the lake’s ecosystem to break down all of a sudden. The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology. Sustainable development does not focus solely on environmental issues. The United Nations 2005 World Summit Outcome Document refers to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.
Question : Scientific Temper.
(1999)
Answer : Scientific temper describes an attitude which involves the application of logic and the avoidance of bias and preconceived notions. Discussion, argument and analysis are vital parts of scientific temper. It is thus necessarily open admitting every point of view, however heterodox it might be, or where it comes from. Elements of fairness, equality and democracy are built into it.Scientific temper is one of the attributes that Pandit Nehru wanted all of us Indians to cultivate. This involves the application of logic and reasoning, and the avoidance of bias and preconceived notions in arriving at decisions, and becomes particularly valuable while deciding what is best for the community or the nation.
Discussion, argument and analysis are vital parts of scientific temper. It is thus necessarily open — admitting every point of view, however heterodox it might be, or where it comes from. Elements of fairness, equality and democracy are built-in. Two eloquent phrases characterize a group that practices scientific temper — internal pluralism and external receptivity. But the term scientific temper should not be confused with scientific method. Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. Thus to a great extent scientific temper is the translation of scientific method in every walks of life.
Question : Scientific Progress.
(1998)
Answer : Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics. Progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science. Debates on the normative concept of progress are at the same time concerned with axiological questions about the aims and goals of science. The task of philosophical analysis is to consider alternative answers to the question:
What is meant by progress in science? This conceptual question can then be complemented by the methodological question: How can we recognize progressive developments in science? Relative to a definition of progress and an account of its best indicators, one may then study the factual question: To what extent, and in which respects, is science progressive? Science is a multi-layered complex system involving a community of scientists engaged in research using scientific methods in order to produce new knowledge. Thus, the notion of science may refer to a social institution, the researchers, the research process, the method of inquiry, and scientific knowledge. The concept of progress can be defined relative to each of these aspects of science.
Hence, different types of progress can be distinguished relative to science: economical(the increased funding of scientific research), professional (the rising status of the scientists and their academic institutions in the society), educational (the increased skill and expertise of the scientists), methodical (the invention of new methods of research, the refinement of scientific instruments), and cognitive(increase or advancement of scientific knowledge). These types of progress have to be conceptually distinguished from advances in other human activities, even though it may turn out that scientific progress has at least some factual connections with technological progress (increased effectiveness of tools and techniques) and social progress (economic prosperity, quality of life, justice in society). All of these aspects of scientific progress may involve different considerations, so that there is no single concept that would cover all of them. For our purposes, it is appropriate here to concentrate only on cognitive progress, i.e., to give an account of advances of science in terms of its success in knowledge-seeking.
Question : Philosophy of Ecology.
(1997)
Answer : The science of ecology studies interactions between individual organisms and their environments, including interactions with both co specifics and members of other species. Though ecology emerged in the 19th century much of its theoretical structure only emerged in the twentieth century. Though ecology includes a wide variety of sub-fields, philosophical analysis of ecology has so far been restricted to population, community, and ecosystem ecology. Central philosophical problems include explication of relevant notions of ecological diversity and stability the relation between diversity and stability.
Other debated questions are the nature of laws and theories in ecology, strategies of model-building, and reductionism. Contemporary ecology is undergoing a conceptual upheaval because of increased computational power. The recent emphasis on individual-based models, which embrace methodological individualism, should be viewed as a return of reductionism in ecology. Other important developments include widespread interest in spatially explicit models and the advent of Geographical Information Systems. The term “ecology” was coined by the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, in 1866 to describe the “economies” of living forms. Turning to the philosophy of ecology, beyond those interpretive and conceptual problems that arise because of the evolutionary context, ecology also presents interpretive and philosophical problems from its own unique conceptual structure and experimental practices.
These days population, community, and ecosystem ecology have been the focus of the little philosophical attention that has so far been afforded to ecology; there will also be some limited treatment of spatial ecology. However, because ecology has not received the degree of professional philosophical attention it deserves while popular “ecological philosophies” abound—this entry concentrates more on foundational and interpretive issues raised by the science of ecology rather than only on what philosophers have written about the subject. This entry treats experimental and theoretical work simultaneously with a bias in favor of those theoretical results that are unambiguously testable. It was once commonplace for even ecologists to accuse ecological theory of unsuitability. This criticism was not completely fair even in the past; moreover, both experimental and theoretical developments during the last few decades have removed much of its force. Instead, what ecology poses is a much more philosophically intriguing set of several problems.
