Shallow ecology offers an interesting approach in measuring the monetary value of preserving the environment in the form of a “cost benefit analysis”. Preserving the environment is obviously at a cost, which in economic terms is known as an opportunity cost. For example, if we decide to conserve a rainforest, the next best alternative (e.g. building houses) for that area of land would be forgone. Thus, it is crucial that we weigh the human benefits with monetary cost before making pivotal decisions concerning the use of natural resources.
However, there are several key problems faced when using a cost-benefit analysis. One question posed would be “how far in the future do we measure up the costs and benefits?” From a short-term perspective, calculations of costs/benefits may only aim to benefit the current generation. This may be at the expense of human beings and animals in the future. Also, another consideration to take into account would be the sustainability of the environment. Since resources in the environment are limited and finite, the current generation would have to compromise their lifestyles to achieve sustainability.
Since cost-benefit analysis only considers the welfare of the entire human population as a whole, the minority may find themselves at a losing end. For example, small countries such as the Maldives could disappear if the cost of preserving it seemed too high for the rest of the world. As a result, the natives and the animals may just lose their homes. Moreover, many animal species might become extinct if no human good is served by preserving them and if nobody is prepared to pay.
Thus, while cost-benefit analysis of shallow ecology may justify the actions taken for various issues, in reality such actions may be morally wrong.
Deep ecology offers several convincing insights as well. It considers humankind an integral part of its environment and places greater value on non-human species and ecosystems, emphasizing the preservation of the entire system. The founder of this line of thought, Næss, states that "the right of all forms of life to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species." Hence, deep ecologists believe that environmental damage is never justifiable because it creates disorder in the ecosystem. For example, felling trees for wood would kill the trees as well as destroy the habitat for many other species. Hence, it is deemed morally wrong. Concerning several issues, deep ecology seems a better approach compared to shallow ecology. While shallow ecology may justify the reckless killing of an entire species of animals for the sake of improving our standards of living, deep ecology would certainly disapprove of it.
Peter Singer once said that we have duties to animals not because they are instrumental to human good, nor because they have right, but because they have the capacity to feel pleasure or pain. Animals have an interest in living, just as humans do. Thus, before making major decisions concerning the destruction of habitats, we should put ourselves in the animal’s position and question how much we would suffer if that particular action was done unto us or our habitat.
However, adopting deep ecology is only possible to a certain extent. We cannot possibly consider the rights of every system. For instance, it would be futile to take the rights of plants into consideration as we are dependent on them for food, wood and other resources. Thus, it is inevitable that we exert our rights over theirs. Also, if both the wild animals and the Bushmen have rights to land – the animals have right to roam the fields and make their home there while the Bushmen have the right to the land to grow crops and build homes – the how shall we reconcile such conflicts? In fact, the conflict between the rights of two systems exist everywhere and every day of our lives. It is difficult to resolve them and ultimately, the right of one system would have to be exerted over another’s.
Also, how do we justify the claim that all things are of equal significance? Furthermore, upon what basis are we to grant that our environment has rights? Also, what is the basis to grant that animals have equal rights to humans? What rights do animals have?
Another response to the centralised question of environmental ethics is the Christian view. The bible states that God created the world and determined the nature and purpose of all things in creation. In the old testament, he gave man the right to rule over the earth: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ Genesis 1:26. In this sense, because human beings are elevate to a level of special creation, humans should take responsibility over protecting the environment, because all other creatures do not have the ability to. Since God also stated that the main purpose of creation is to glorify Him, humanity placing its own desires ahead of the teachings of the Bible leads is viewed as selfish and sinful.
The rights of all systems are best seen as a continuum or spectrum. Every system sits somewhere along this line, and on the extreme right end is man, who was ultimately is given supreme right over the earth. Thus, we should take into a certain amount of consideration when making decisions which may cause harm to animals or other systems. Completely embracing the anthropocentric view would be both selfish and morally wrong.
