'Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection,' Kevin Elliott; Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments: A Risky Business?

摘要

Energy scientist Amory Lovins is fond of pointing out that in the late 19th century, it was not picketing environmentalists that saved the whales being slaughtered en masse for oil used for lighting; it was the engineers and venture capitalists that made electricity a viable and scalable power source (Lovins, 2012). To put a finer point on it, humans adopted a practice that benefited the environment (to stop killing whales for oil) neither for nonanthropocentric reasons (e.g., that whales have rights) nor for direct anthropocentric reasons (e.g., that whales provide aesthetic benefits). Rather, the environment was unintentionally benefited (whales were preserved) because of a practice that was beneficial to humans (electricity was cheaper than whale oil).