Chimpanzees and tigers or exotic animals are not domestic animals and therefore people should not be allowed to keep them. Owning these animals as pets can be extremely dangerous. People who keep them may think that they are doing well to the animals, but in real sense the animals belongs to the game parks. Protecting these animals from poaching, killing and ignorance can only be curbed by having proper systems and structures that ensures that these animals are well taken care of and protected in the parks. Risks involved The risk factors that comes along with keeping such animals are so high compared to the little advantages that people may claim to be getting from them.
Our life, animals’ life, and plants’ life are becoming worse because we are destroying the environment. You do not have to do anything right now, for it will not affect your life a lot. Nonetheless, let’s think about the children and the children’s children. They cannot choose how their life will be. All of it depends on us.
With the average diesel price today ($4.12) it would cost the U.S $1,030 per trip to import their food to a market4. It takes about 10 miles to get locally grown food from a farm to a market. To transport locally grown food using a tractor trailer that have an average miles per gallon of 7 to transport locally grown food, it would cost about $8.12 for a round trip. This is significantly cheaper compared to the $1,030 per trip for imported food. Using imported food not only has a huge impact for our economy but also for our air quality.
Despite this, his synderesis rule consequently cannot be applied to all situations when dealing with issues concerning the environment as it is impossible to ‘avoid evil’ completely. When dealing with an issue such as pollution for example, a follower of natural law could interpret it as evil as it contributes to the destruction of God’s creation, and also causing harm to some humans in the form of asthma. The theory would eradicate pollution altogether, though this is very unrealistic as pollution has to be committed in some degree in order for the world to function as it does today. Therefore natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment due to the fact that its arguments cannot be applied to every situation. A further way in which natural law
Bolivia is rich in nature and has many natural resources to offer. The nature’s conservation of the country is under pressure because of global interests, but it’s an opportunity for Bolivia that can be beneficial to them and help create more stability and less inequality among the country. Bolivia has the second largest reserves after Venezuela and looks like the perfect supplier for natural gas. But in 2005, a hydrocarbons law was passed by the government that imposed higher royalties and required foreign firms who were operating under risk-sharing contracts at the time, to surrender all production to the state energy company in exchange for a predetermined fee. The hydrocarbons sector has raised question as to whether Bolivia has the sector’s capacity or not to grow.
The forests of Central Africa are regarded as some of the world’s most pristine and dense. The losses of these forests are likely to increase carbon emissions and soil erosion in the region. Though timber is regarded as a renewable resource this deforestation has the potential to put the region 260 years in the hole. Another leading cause of deforestation is the use of wood as fuel. In Malawi wood is still the main fuel.
The topsoils and forests and watersheds destroyed by mining will not be replenished in a time imaginable by humans.” (“What Matters”, 32). Berry warns that if this decadent consumerism continues, human life will face catastrophic failure. While Berry does not take the time to elaborate on the evidence of these claims, it would not be presumptuous to assume them as true given the lack of skepticism in the scientific community regarding these sorts of reports. Additionally, Berry takes offense to the exploitation of meek
An environmental theory that has come about because of the issues of treating animals as people has been whether or not the animals kept in captivity will face the loss of their habitat, will face the detrimental effects of global warming with no way to be rescued and also may be targeted by hunters. “Others worry about animals themselves. Steve Feldman, spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, says that keeping and breeding animals in captivity is sometimes the only way to safeguard a species. Opponents of captivity, he argues, too often ignore the reality of habitat loss, global warming, hunters, and poachers threatening species in the wild,” according to Berdik (2013). It is a very real possibility that by releasing an animal from captivity and essentially treating them as a human that the animal could face complete loss of their natural habitat and may end up extinct or near-extinct due to hunters targeting them.
Also the way that the animals react to the stress of the experiments can severely affect the end results, rendering the experiments meaningless. Although it is true that we need animals to test our medical drugs on because if we didn’t, with modern day technology we wouldn’t be able to find cures for major diseases. But that doesn’t mean we should treat them so
It seems clear that if one individual harms another, through whatever means, it makes it more difficult for the harmed individual to carry out parts of their “life-plan”. According to Mill, this is where intervention should occur. This is not a valid way of exercising your autonomy because you are putting the autonomy of other individuals at risk. This is what constitutes harm. However, the state or any other individual has no grounds to intervene if you’re not seen to harm others.