Reference no: EM133314520

Case Study:

1. Cosmos-centric Approach In earlier civilization, human beings understood themselves as being in harmony with nature. The whole cosmos is one whole system of order of which we are part. Early Greek and Chinese philosophers articulated this harmony in their poetry and reflections. Early Greek philosophers were focused on finding the "basic stuff" of the universe. This means that they understood everything in the universe to be united by one basic element. For Taoist thought, the universe is understood as a vast spectrum of energy in need of constant balance and harmony. In the middle of the two opposite poles- heaven and the earth, is the human being. Natural laws govern the movement of Qi as Yin and Yang to create a harmonious balance in the universe. Part of the balance created is the human being- a reflection of the balance between heaven and earth, of Yin and Yang. The human person can affect the balance in the environment. If there is too much Yang in the person (meaning there is too much expenditure of energy such as aggression, greed, vanity, and other forms of imbalance), the surrounding environment suffers as well. Forest is denuded, rivers are polluted, etc. These are all results of overconsumption and wasteful living of the human being. However, if there is too much Yin (indifference, idleness, or laziness) there is no regard for the preservation of the earth's resources. We simply watch and wait everything to self-destruct. The Cosmos-centric Approach to understanding our relationship with the environment shows that human beings are a microcosm of the cosmos ('micro'- small + 'cosmos'-universe). It means the universe is reflected in us; we are the small version of the universe. The same cosmic patterns that govern nature also govern our being. This means that when these natural laws and cosmic patterns are tampered with (like increased air pollution leading to global warming), results in an imbalance that also affects the balance within humans (i.e., increase incidence of asthma). If there is no balance of energies in nature, the persons also feel an imbalance within themselves. On the reverse side, when there is an imbalance within the person, there would also imbalance in everything around him.

2. Theocentric Approach Theo (God) centric approach refers to an understanding coming from a religious interpretation. This especially applies to Judeo-Christian tradition as specified in the creation story. When God entrusted man and woman by giving them the role of stewards of creation. We have been given the power to make use of what has been given to us, but with this power comes the responsibility and duty to take care of the gift. As such, we are not just consumers of earth's resources. We are its co-creators. This approach is further supported by the principle of 'Causality' by Aristotle which was Christianized and used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Causality- the cause of causes. Aristotle- The cause of the cause is the cause of thing cause. St. Thomas Aquinas- He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of thing cause. God is the prime mover, the first cause, the cause who is the uncaused cause. In the encyclical letter of Pope Francis entitled, Laudato Si (Praised be to you my Lord) stated succinctly: "The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation" (Laudato Si, # 48). He calls on the entire humanity... "to recognize

3. Anthropocentric Approach This approach, Anthropos (man) + centric, is like the theocentric approach that puts the human person in dominion over the earth but de-emphasized the role of God. It started with the rise of experimental sciences. For instance, the knowledge we have of experimentation, such as the "control set-up" compared to the "experimental set-up". In the control set-up consisted of a seed planted on a cup of good soil, placed in an environment with sufficient light and air, and watered every day. Alongside, the experimental set- ups: one seed is planted on bad soil, another seed was planted on good soil but was placed in the dark; another seed was planted and was covered with plastic; while the last one is similar to the control set-up except that it was not watered at all. As we compared, the lack of proper sunlight, water, air, and soil has a significant effect on the growth of a plant. Notice in this activity shows how man is able to manipulate the natural conditions for the growth of the plant. In these instances, the experimenter is seen as "intervening" with nature. The set example is a mark of modern science. While it is true to note that before the development of the experimental method, scientists were more of "listeners" of nature. They simply observed the movement of heavenly bodies and from there deduced patterns that they encoded into laws of nature. Today the sciences are not simply passive observers of nature. They penetrate its secrets; such the way of anatomists would open up a human body and study its connections. Pharmaceutical sciences test their medicines against a placebo in order to see how much the invented pill alters existing conditions. The development of experimental science has made human beings aware that they can detach themselves from the ongoing cycle of nature and thereby control it. No longer is the human being simply vulnerable to the dictates of nature, natural calamities such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods can be controlled to some extent. The natural aging of skin or the shape of the body can also be altered. Man learns to alter the course of nature. The downside of the rise of modern sciences is the swelling of the human being's pride over his own powers to alter and manipulate nature. Destruction of the environment is evident, mountains are denuded, seas and rivers are polluted and the atmosphere is destroyed. With this destruction, there is a clamor for a return to the cosmos-centric or theocentric approach.

4. Balanced Approach Learning from these approaches, we can see that it is possible to put them all together. The cosmos-centric approach emphasizes the human being as a balance between heaven and earth. This relates to the anthropocentric approach which shows how we are earthly beings in need of resources and the theocentric approach which emphasizes our heavenly role as stewards of creation.

Question 1. What approach do you think would lead to the destruction of the earth if this would be more evident? Why? Write your answer in five sentences on the lines provided.

Question 2. Among all approaches, what approach do you like most and why?