Counter-Arguments

=**Counter Arguments Against Individualism** =

= =


 __Regarding Individualism in general:__ Early Individualist systems were built off of existing human ethics, and as such have many shortcomings when applied to the environment, because if we are only responsible for what is “just” to us individually, then we will still have situations like a farmer clearing a 75% slope to graze cattle on at th expense of the trees and debris falling toward a river, because it is convenient and reasonable to him.

Existing systems are not different enough to affect any real change; "intellectual emphasis, loyalties, and convictions" tend to stay the same, and the case for this is that philosophy and religion have not [at the time of writing, arguably they have lately] reacted to these changes in mindset. By trying to make environmental virtue easy to obtain, we have made it meaningless.

Preserving the stability of entire ecosystems is more important than preserving individual beings or resources.

**Eric Katz  **
__Regarding Individualism in general:__ Humans must be considered part of the ecosystem in order to avoid criticism about Individualism (or indeed, Leopold's system) not justifying the killing of viruses, invasive species, and other such things that harm human welfare or experience.

**Other possible counterarguments/perspectives: **
 Environmental Pragmatists and Deep Ecologists might say both that Individualism both is not achieving anything, and also that it neglects ecosystems, but not so much as to dissuade Individualists from becoming active in policy making.

Deep Ecologists would also argue that many Individualist frameworks are rather shallow, especially anything purely economical or resource minded, because they fail to ask "why," in general.

Ecofeminists would note that Individualism does not acknowledge the late "oppression of women and nature" that has caused both human and eco-systemic suffering.




 Perhaps, for our far reaching and contemptible actions, we humans are not justified in continuing to life the way we do, or even to think of ourselves as the most valuable beings on the planet. We should view ourselves as a species greatly indebted to the natural world, and only after we rectify what we have done (or simply affect no more damage if we are unable to "fix" nature, which is another issue), should we consider ourselves even at equal with nature. This is not compatible with most Individualist hierarchical systems outlined in the text, since it could end up putting plants above humans.

This is a Holist perspective, and practically speaking it would probably be the most far-reaching and least likely-to-happen that I can think of. It also would require the currently living population taking responsibility for all of those before them, which is also unlikely to happen, but arguably necessary to affect environmental justice. When we have done enough would of course at least somewhat subjective, so this would also be an issue of contention, but not necessarily of fundamental disagreement. ** ~ Nik Hildebrand **