Ways of seeing the environment

Different ways of seeing the environment require different responsibilities and actions on the part of humans (see below).

Although each point of view supports environmental responsibility in one form or another, the reasons they provide for being environmentally responsible are very different.

Anthropocentric (human-centred)

Anthropocentrism is the view that we should only protect and replenish the environment so that it serves human purposes (such as producing food, drugs etc). In this idea, human beings are morally significant and valued, but animals and plants are not.

Ecocentric (environment-centred)

This approach assumes that the environment deserves direct consideration, and not just derived from human (and animal) interests. It states that all elements of the environment have worth, just like humans, and so should be valued and cared for.

Environmental stewardship

This view suggests that humans have a duty to manage and care for the whole natural environment. We are responsible for the continued health of the whole ecosystem, not just the parts that benefit the human race.

Sustainable development

This approach seeks to ensure that current development does not alter the environment's ability to recover from any damage sustained. It also makes extensive use of renewable resources.

The following activity enables students to explore principles such as informed consent, individual rights and freedom of choice. Discussion may also touch on the distribution of decision-making power between governments, the corporations who manufacture and sell GM foods, and the consumers.

Humans and the environment - work sheet [PDF 28kb | 2 page]

Precautionary principle

When having to decide on an action, a cautious approach – or a precautionary approach – acts to avoid serious or irreversible potential harm, even when it is not certain what the likelihood of the harm occurring is, the degree of harm or what causes the harm.

The ‘precautionary principle’ or ‘precautionary approach’ is a response to uncertainty when faced with risks to health or the environment. The idea behind the principle is that appropriate action should be taken to avoid the risk of any serious and irreversible damage to the environment. The principle does not mean that if there is risk then things should not go ahead.

So far, despite large-scale cultivation of GM crops, there have been no reports of any significant adverse effects on the environment or on human health arising directly from the GM crops or the food they produce. This is a powerful argument to suggest that the existing regulatory framework for the licensing of GMOs is working. In addition, reduced environmental impact from chemical usage has been documented as a result of the introduction of certain GM crops (e.g. GM cotton in Australia). Clearly, each application of gene technology must be stringently assessed on its relative merits and risks.

The precautionary principle can be used in environmental management, law and even policy making for any area such as pollution, toxic chemicals, food standards, fisheries management, species introductions and wildlife trade.

It aims to support ecologically sustainable development - to manage our natural resources and conserve our biodiversity, while continuing to develop as an economy.

This principle, put simply, is that a cautious approach to risk should be adopted where there is not enough scientific confidence of safety. Successful application of the precautionary principle will mean that Australia avoids expensive damage (financial or otherwise) to our environment.

For detailed discussion, go to The Precautionary Principle Project: http://www.pprinciple.net/