7.Summary, conclusions and outlook
7.1To chapter 1 (Introduction)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner should understand the complexity and peculiarity of environmental ethics in terms specific environmental cases (Lesson 1); basic environmental problems in different media (Lesson 2); furthermore to understand scientific developments and at least the basic philosophical backgrounds behind environmental ideologies or approaches to comprehend how man-nature mutual relationship affected and changed in time will be discussed (Lesson 3); finally, the learner will understand our responsibilities towards nature and the necessity of harmonising environmental ethics into pollution control and monitoring activities to overcome environmental problems.
7.1.1Lesson 1: The complexity of environmental problems
Nowadays environmental problems are growing faster and faster and as a human being, we have been facing their destructive consequences heavily. Unfortunately those problems have several dimensions that have to be considered while solving them: ecological, economical, social, cultural, technical, etc. this makes environmental problems complicated, complex and peculiar. Therefore several dilemmatic situations caused by multidimensional characteristic of environmental problems. Its complexity might be confronted if and only if by changing human behaviours towards environment. That is, it is necessary for people (especially for environmental experts as a role-model in the society and decision maker as shaping environmental policies) to adopt and harmonize ethical dimensions to the scientific, technological, economical, social and legal aspects of controlling environmental pollution to achieve effective environmental protection.
7.1.2 Lesson 2: The problem of pollution and degradation
There is a need for a mechanism to change code of behaviors, namely, environmental ethical values being different than the laws are informal and unwritten value based conduct of the individuals towards environment. Only by the internalization of these ethical values, problems might be prevented. It is declared in United Nations Global Change Report in 2007 that, most of the environmental problems are caused by anthropogenic sources. Therefore to understand the sources and impacts of environmental problems in different media (air, water, land, etc.) and how ecosystems function is very important. If wholesomeness of the ecosystem or fragility and sensitivity of nature is understood well by individuals and one can conceive his/her position within, and then the individual reaches the situation of consciousness. Scientific knowledge and experiences about nature increase sensitivity and may lead to facilitated consciousness that leads to the sense of responsibility. This structure lays the foundations of good-bad concepts and living and experiencing the good and the bad, we could extract our responsibilities, which help us to achieve "good" in the context of internalized environmental ethic.
7.1.3 Lesson 3: The socio-economic background and environmental responsibility
Unfortunately, we don't have enough time. We are very close to the end of present consumption habits and living styles, in other other words, behaviours does not change towards environmentally sensitive manner. Some issues occur suddenly and unexpectedly so delays before science catches up may be unavoidable. For example we don't know when economical or ecological crisis will come or we don't know the long term impacts of some technological developments on environment. Technological unknowns like, the use of nanotechnology, artificially created lives, the use of biofuels, etc. Therefore, moral development of individuals is needed urgently. That means individuals should form their own ethical framework to live in harmony with nature by assessing the consequences of their relationship with nature. Basic facts about how natural ecosystems function and technical dimension of the environmental pollution and control practices should be integrated with our judgments concerning the intrinsic value of nature and our commitments to other living things and future generations.
7.2.To chapter 2 (Environmental ethics: The search for decision criteria)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner understands what ethics is about. After lesson 1 she/he knows a working definition of ethics, the three main theories, the meaning of norm and value and how correct moral reasoning works. After lesson 2 she/he can describe, analyze, assess and justify a moral problem. In lesson 3 she/he learns what environmental ethics are.
7.2.1 Lesson 1: Towards a working definition
To understand better what kind of problems are ethical, we learned more about Ethics and Philosophy. In the first lesson we went back into the history of Greek philosophy to meet the roots of Ethics. We confronted Ethics with other disciplines and saw that ethical thinking is a special way of viewing the world. From the confrontation with other disciplines a working definition of Ethics was composed: THE SYSTEMATICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ACTION OF HUMANS ASKING THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT ACTION IS GOOD/NOT GOOD IN THE END.
That definition, especial the words ‘in the end', leads to one of three kinds of Ethics: the normative one. That kind has all to do with moral argumentation, with clarifying values. The words ‘in the end' refer to a conflict of values. So ethics, ethical problems have to do with a conflict of values.
Ethics is at stake when the question is: what I ought to do? How do I have to act? What is good, right in this situation? And when I choose, what are my arguments for that choice. Which norm or value is the most important to make that choice? Within normative ethics there are three kinds of ethical theories. Their representatives, philosophers, have an answer to the questions above. The three are: (1) Teleological theories, (2) deontological theories and (3) virtue ethics.
One teleological theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism searches the criterion for the good or bad nature of the human action in the benefit or the harm caused by that action. The action should not only benefit the actor but also other people involved. An important question is who are involved in a certain action. When the action benefits the majority of the people involved, the action is good. When the action harms most of them, it is not good. Important utilitarian philosophers, the founding fathers, are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
Deontological theories don't put the accent, concerning the moral judgment of human actions, to the consequences. They don't deal with the goal of the actions. They ask what the norm is. The ethical question "what do I ought to do?" is judged by the intention the actor has, by that what he or she considers to be his or her duty. The Greek word for duty is "deon".
Deontological philosophers argue that an action is right if he is executed according to a principle, a certain demand or norm.
The godfather of deontology is the philosopher IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804). He lived in Konigsberg, Germany. He wrote that the only thing that is right is the good will, intention. The nature of our motives and intentions is important. What the good will is we learn when we are confronted with duty. A moral duty is a ‘maxim', a moral rule. Moral rules precede actions. Finally, vvirtue ethics call a human action good when you act according to virtues.
The learning about value is limited to the terms "functional or instrumental value" and "intrinsic value":
1)Functional or instrumental value. Something has value, is good, because human sees it as an instrument, a tool to realize his goals, his ends. It is useful, especially economical useful.
2)Intrinsic value. This value is derived from the end in itself. These values are good because of themselves.
Correct, moral reasoning needs that when you participate to an ethical, moral discussion,
You: (1.) make clear your moral, ethical presupposition, (2.) agree on the facts concerning the situation and (3.) when you use a particular word in your presupposition, you have to verify whether that term can be used for (the factual) situation.
7.2.2 Lesson 2: Moral dilemmas
Moral dilemmas differ from others. They have to meet five criteria:
1.You can't avoid them. You are at a cross-road, you go left or right. Even when you don't make a choice, you choose;
2.Other people are involved. Even when they are far away;
3.Any choice is of interest to those involved. It can have consequences to the feeling of self respect, the happiness of other people;
4.You can't meet all the interests for a 100 per cent. You can't satisfy all who are involved completely and
5.The moral actor is free to choose.
Environmental ethics challenges 2. The question is whether the reasons, the arguments, to involve people are also sufficient to involve other living beings, elements of nature or even nature as a whole. In professional ethics it is also important to conclude that the moral dilemma is within your personal ‘span of control'. To identify, analyse and solve professional moral dilemmas they are of a ‘personalistic' not of a structural character.
Moral problems in a professional situation can be dealt with by using a professional code. Professionals also can use a step-by-step scheme. Before using such a scheme there are some remarks on the moral quality of ethical decision making. Moral quality, when confronted with a moral dilemma in a professional situation, has to do with the action itself and with the procedure. The action itself has moral quality when it is a compromise. Moral quality can only be reached with a procedure that is characterised by the word ‘together'. A step-by-step scheme can be used to describe, analyse, assess and justify a moral dilemma.
7.2.3 Lesson 3: Introduction to environmental ethics
The general goals are to learn what environmental ethics are. Environmental ethics is about moral care for nature and environment. That moral care depends on what is and what has the moral status. The moral status of nature and environment depends on anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric arguments. The most important theories of both kinds of arguments are dealt with in this chapter. First some definitions are given. The definition of environmental ethics is: THE SYSTEMATICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ACTION OF HUMANS TOWARDS NATURE AND/OR ENVIRONMENT ASKING THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT ACTION IS GOOD/NOT GOOD IN THE END.
Nature and environment can have a meaning for humans in three ways: (1) condition of life; (2) intrinsic value and (3) mean of production.
There is an environmental problem when man himself considers that the relation with the environment is disturbed. That happens when one of the three meanings loses so much quality that a group of people considers that problematic. So environmental problems are not individual but social problems. Environmental problems can also be seen as conflicts of value. A situation becomes an environmental problem when we realize that there is a difference between the actual and the desired situation of nature and environment. Environmental ethics helps to analyse and to solve conflicts of value. Moreover she has to justify the solutions. That brings you to answering questions like who or what has value and what kind of values are we talking about.
There are two large groups of value perspectives: the anthropocentric and the non-anthropocentric. Both contain different kinds of environmental ethics. For the distinction between anthropocentrism and to non-anthropocentrism the question is whether only human beings have value or also other elements of nature and environment have value.
Who or what has moral status and why?
The only acceptable reason within the anthropocentric view to conserve and cultivate nature is that satisfaction of basic human needs - like nourishing the body and maintaining health - depends on nature. Also the reluctance by using natural resources (like animals, fossil fuels, minerals etc.) could be justify only in respect to the needs and interests of contemporary humans or at most still future generations.
The non-anthropocentric view can be presented in many ways. In this book the view is presented by four kinds of theories: (1) pathocentrism (2) biocentrism (3) ecocentrism and (4) holism. In chapter 2 a short introduction is given. The four kinds of theories and their representatives will be dealt with in chapter 4.
7.3.To chapter 3 (The challenge to environmental ethics)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner should understand how the field of environmental ethics is structured; she/he should to know, which are the central areas of environmental ethics (lesson 1) and the essential levels of environmental reasoning (lesson 2).
7.3.1Lesson 1: Three „areas" of environmental ethics
Environmental ethics is an ethics of application. Its worth depends on whether moral intrinsic value is attached to the environment of the human society - that is nature - or not. If we do so, we can distinguish three "areas" of environmental ethics, which together build an ascending sequence. Each subsequent area includes the former or extends it with an additional "moral agent":
(1.)Ethics of resources: In case that a value is adjudged to nature only in relation to humans, we talk about "ethics of resources". Resource ethics asks about how we can use the raw materials and environmental media (such as water and soil) provided by nature without causing irreversible damages (overexploitation or environmental pollution). Such ethics can be justified solely by anthropocentric reasons, i.e. by the interests of people.
(2.) Animal ethics is concerned with the well-being of individual beings, which are sensitive to pain. The term "animal ethics" is a bit ambiguous, as animal ethics usually only attends to sentient organisms. So animal ethics asks whether animals - at least the ones with sensitivity (to pain) - possess a value and a purpose in themselves. And - if so - asks, what this means in an ethical sense with regard to our relation and behaviour towards them. A consequent animal ethics moves beyond the sole anthropocentric approach by thinking in a "pathocentric" way.
(3.) Ethics of nature attends to the moral aspects of the dealing with lower "insentient" life forms (plants, fungi, bacteria etc.) as well as with other supra-individual biotic entities as species, biocoenosis, ecosystems and landscapes. Nature ethics asks whether each form of life or complex natural systems - and perhaps even the nature as a whole - possesses moral value and therefore is absolutely worth to be protected. Such ethics (however it might be substantiated) goes - even more as the animal ethics - beyond the scope of an environmental ethics which solely respects the interests of humans. Instead of anthropocentric, nature ethics is physiocentric oriented.
7.3.2 Lesson 2: Three levels of environmental reasoning
In order to establish a classification of environmental ethics it is not only important to discriminate the three mentioned terms of reference (among environmental ethicists these are largely consent), but also to distinguish several levels, on which environmental ethics are implemented. Three such levels can be outlined:
(1)Philosophical level (ethics): This "high"level deals with fundamental explanatory statements: ethical claims of validity are raised, which should be applied universally - i.e. for all members of the ethical discourse community.
(2)Political-legal level (laws): On this level we are dealing with the definition of collective binding normative regulations and aims for political actions (e.g. environmental quality goals). Every definition of this kind presupposes certain environmental attitudes and other political decisions, done in the past. All relevant environmental aims and programs are decided and set in force by political organs like governments, parliaments and public administration.
(3)Casuistic level (single cases and actions): In the centre of this level are tangible cases of environmental contamination or destruction, resp. methods and measures for the protection or regeneration of a polluted or destructed environment. Primarily, these measures are of technical kind. Practical environmental management is required, and the know-how of environmental experts (environmental engineers, technicians etc.) is in the centre of interest.
The specific contributions of environmental ethics to the three levels of environmental reasoning are treated in the following chapters (4-6).
7.4.To chapter 4 (Main approaches to environmental ethics)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner understand that environmental ethics questions the assumed moral supremacy of human beings to members of other species on earth that environmental ethics seeks rational arguments to assign moral status to nature and environment and its nonhuman elements; furthermore that environmental ethics has two views on those matters: the anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric.
Environmental Ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early 1970s. Till that time philosophy has been questioning human actions towards human beings. Actions towards nature are dealt with in an anthropocentric way. Those actions are good or not good as far as the wellbeing of humans is at stake. The traditional anthropocentrism is challenged. It is challenged by the anthropocentric view and by the non-anthropocentric view.
7.4.1 Lesson 1: The anthropocentric view
The "anthropocentrics" among the environmental ethicists deny that the "physiocentrists" are right when they claim an "intrinsic value" of natural beings or nature as a whole. In other words: within the field of environmental ethics especially the anthropocentric and physiocentric positions are opposed rather sharply. In the anthropocentric view animals, plants, ecosystems, and the whole nature have only an "instrumental value" regarding human beings and their interests.
The only acceptable reason to conserve and cultivate nature is that satisfaction of basic human needs - like nourishing the body and maintaining health - depends on nature. Also the reluctance by using natural resources (like animals, fossil fuels, minerals etc.) could be justify only in respect to the needs and interests of contemporary humans or at most still future generations.
However, some more moderate anthropocentrics may concede that at least an aesthetic argument for protecting nature could be add to this instrumental view of nature: they base the need to conserve and cultivate nature on nature's sensual attractions for us, the pleasure for instance we take in walking through a forest or swim in a lake.
7.4.2 Lesson 2: The non-anthropocentric view
The non-anthropocentric view pays attention to rational arguments for giving moral status to non-human beings, to elements of nature and environment. Although moral status is not the same as intrinsic value first three kinds of that concept are dealt with. We also saw that the use of ‘intrinsic value' has several functions.
According to the Dutch philosopher Wouter Achterberg environmental ethics is trying to expand the narrow morality to the relations between human beings and other organisms, beings. When 'intrinsic value' is used to justify that expand the concept ‘intrinsic value', meaning that beings or entities have certain essential properties, is essential. Because of those properties they deserve moral consideration or an attitude of moral respect towards them the proper thing to do. In chapter 4 the non-anthropocentric view is presented by four kinds of theory: (1) pathocentrism, (2) biocentrism, (3) ecocentrism and (4) holism.
The essence of the four can be found by looking at the meaning of the Greek roots. Pathos means feeling. Pathocentrism says that making sentient beings suffer is wrong. Bios means life. Creatures that live have moral status.
The Greek eco can be translated by house. In ecology is the surrounding a being is living in. Mostly there is interdependence between the being(s) and the surrounding, nature and environment. That interdependence is also the characteristic of an ecosystem. So the moral status of an ecosystem and his members is at stake in ecocentrism.
Holism is derived from "holos" and concerns the whole. The elements of the whole, of the ecosystem, are depending on the well-being of that whole. That is the argument to give moral status to the whole and its elements.
Every kind of theory has its representatives. In chapter 4 some important ones are introduced. Each philosopher represents a vision within the four kinds of theory. The visions are related to the important basic ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology.
The anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric views, the different kinds of theory and their representatives are helpful to ethical decision making.
This is done by using the step-by-step-scheme or the basic attitudes of human beings towards nature and environment.
7.4.3 Lesson 3: Ethical decision making
When the reader is assessing her ethical presupposition and/or conclusion the knowledge about the basic ethical theories and those of environmental ethics can be used. Some of the knowledge can be found in this book. It is also important to know how to get more knowledge.
Chapter 4 is offering some examples using the step-by-step-scheme and the basic attitudes to analyse human actions towards animals. The positions of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, an utilitarian and a deontological one, are elaborated. So it becomes clear what their arguments lead to. The elaboration also is an example. The reader can use that to deepen and to use the other kinds of theories and their representatives.
Another way to assess ethical decisions is to use basic attitudes. The six basic attitudes are: (1.) the despot (tyrant, master); (2.) the enlightened despot; (3.) the steward; (4.) the partner; (5.) the participant and (6.) unity.
The first three are characterized by the view that nature only has instrumental value to human beings. Although the basic attitude of the steward has some notion of moral care towards nature. With the basic attitude of the partner the view that nature as some value in herself, has some intrinsic value, is introduced. The basic attitudes are used to decide what the reader ought to do and/or to analyze human actions towards nature and environment. Both times she/he can change attitude towards one that is giving more (or less) intrinsic value to nature and environment.
7.5.To chapter 5 (The Need of political-legal regulation)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner should understand how environmental issues can be regulated by law and politics, and how environmental ethics can contribute to this task.
7.5.1 Lesson 1: Why we need political-legal regulation
In the 20th century a separate environmental legislation was established. Therewith the legislation takes account of the growing extent of societal intrusion into nature: the more on the one hand the environment became a scarce good, for which utilization many societal protagonists compete, and on the other hand the natural habitats of plants and animals (and therewith these self) are in danger of extinction because of the expansion of civilization, the more politics and law are asked to protect nature from exhaustive cultivation, blight and destruction. The mandate for a more efficient nature- and ecological policy is not least owed to a grown public ecological awareness and an increasing appreciation of animals and plants for their own sake.
In general: Political-legal regulation or environmental law is an important tool for the protection of the environment in accordance with economics and social life. It is a complex and interlocking body of statutes, common law, treaties, conventions, regulations and policies which, very broadly, operate to regulate the interaction of humanity and the rest of the biophysical or natural environment. Purpose of all legal rules concerning the protection of environment is reducing or minimizing the impacts of human activity, both on the natural environment for its own sake, and on humanity itself.
7.5.2 Lesson 2: Principles for political and legal measures
Serious and substantial environmental law has to be guided by some high-ranged principles. For many national regulations in the field of environmental law within the European Union (like in Germany), four basic principles are the basis for all processes of environmental law-making: the precautionary principle, the polluter-pays principle, the principle of sustainable development (concerning the integration of environmental protection and economic development), and the cooperation principle.
7.5.3 Lesson 3: Regulation of environmental behaviour
For enforcing the environmental policy principles and objectives two instruments are implemented in the legal framework of many states within the EU: (1) different types of environmental planning and (2) different measures for regulation environmental behaviour.
Environmental planning is an important means of precautionary protection. Such planning takes place as a multi-stage process, involving registering the current situation, forecasting future developments, and conflicts of objectives and interests.
In particular environmental planning and environmental law are meanwhile indispensable instruments of the environmental policy, because without these (instruments) particular environmental goals could not be implemented. Numerous societal protagonists (e.g. administration departments, political parties, environmental associations, private stakeholders) are always contributing to the definition of environmental goals. Especially through the environment protection associations, the participation in advisory boards as well as the public media representatives of certain environmental ethical positions is able to gain attention. But only what will be reflected in politically accepted environmental goals and in applicable environmental law, can actually take effect. Only if a mobilization of the public ecological awareness and with it a raised sensitivity for the ethical relevance of plants, animals or even entire ecosystems will succeed, and find its expression in definitions of standards in the ecological policy and catalogues of measures in public environment protection programs, only then environmental ethics can gain a practical importance.
Environmental behaviour is perhaps the most important objective for environmental policy and education. There are some instruments for regulation the environmental behaviour. One has to distinguish between direct and indirect forms of regulation: Direct regulation of behaviour pertains to legal measures designed to immediately affect environmental behaviour. The "classical" instrument of this type is environmental regulatory law, which originates from police and regulatory law and generally punishes non-compliance by imposing sanctions. Indirect regulation of behaviour does not rely on norms mandating behaviour, but aims to influence addressee motivation: incentives are provided for environmental friendly behaviour while leaving discretion to the addressee. In addition to informational instruments, means of indirectly regulation behaviour notably include economic instruments, such as levies certificates, and subsidies.
More general: Eco-political successes, which were at least influenced also by environment ethical considerations, have emerged first and foremost so far at places where the problems are well noticeable or have provoked concern (especially in regard to the human health). Air pollution control and water pollution control are the most important areas within the EU-countries and OECD, where such successes were reached. In the contrary, problems which occur as a "creeping deterioration" of the environment are scarcely solved: this concerns above all the land consumption, a loss of biodiversity as well as the contamination of soil and ground-water with hazardous substances. In the EU-countries increased endeavours and capacities for actions will become necessary in the future.
7.6.To chapter 6 (Actions on the casuistic level)
The general goal of the chapter is that the learner should understand how environmental sciences like ecology can contribute to environmental ethics, and how one can realise environmental management in practice.
7.6.1 Lesson 1: Environmental science and environmental ethics
There are controversies regarding differing ethical positions on how to assess environmental problems. Thus there are environmental ethicists' disagreement over economic methods and environmental ethicists' disagreements over ecological methods. In the first case it was argued that environmental values are not amenable to economic or quantitative measurement. However some ethicists consider that it is ethically better to attempt to represent environmental values through quantitative value (cost-benefit analysis) than to fail to quantify them.
Regarding the ecological methods to assess environmental problems there are also controversies, some ethicists consider that ecology can contribute little as a science to environmental ethics and other consider that ecological science can adequately ground environmental ethics. The last group of ethicists introduced the notion of "ecological integrity" and "Index of Biotic Integrity" that are difficult to be supported theoretically. It were introduced also the notions of "balance of nature" and "diversity-stability", but because there are no adequate and universal theories of ecological balance it is not clear how ecological theory can support purely ecocentric or biocentric environmental ethics.
The notions of "ecological wholes" and that of "dynamic stability" of an ecological whole are somewhat imprecise and unclear. It could draw the conclusion that holism are arbitrary and imprecise notions that may block progress in environmental ethics.
It could be said that a big part of scientific ecology is uncertain. One procedure for dealing with ecological uncertainty is to minimize type II statistical errors (false negative) rather than type I errors (false positive) when both cannot be avoided.
It could draw the conclusion that ecology might be most helpful to ethics when it does not try to predict complex interactions among many different species, but instead attempts to predict only what will happen for one or two species in a particular case.
7.6.2 Lesson 2: The role of Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)
There is a justified concern, and meanwhile a sensitive debate, on the necessity of implementing the GLP elements into all laboratories, whose activity are focused on routine analysis. The role of analytical chemistry in environmental sciences is, without any doubt, consists of providing the chemical information. The decisions in different environmental issues are taken only with the aid of chemical information, and therefore, we may say that analytical process is part of a general decisional process.
7.6.3 Lesson 3: The implementation of GLP
Implementing GLP on an automated system is always an intellectual and time-consuming task, which requires a great amount of effort. A brief summary of GLP elements is presented in this chapter. The main role is played by actual concept of "quality assurance", which is strongly related to the reliability of analytical data produced by control laboratories.
The general relationships between GLP, management and analytical laboratories are also discussed. There is a strong inter-correlation between environmental pollution, the technology development and its assessment. Some examples of environmental issues and the international actions in order to avoid large-scale disaster are also emphasized.
7.6.4 Lesson 4: Pollution management
The management involved in environmental pollution relies on two partners: one is the represented by the analytical outcome from laboratories (scientific management) and the other is given by the knowledge of juridical laws system concerning to environment. The decisions that represent conducting environmental measures are taken by means of these two inputs. The results of the decision are related to the minimizing the effects of pollution and the pollutions sources to become within acceptable limits. Nowadays, political system and mass-media may play important role in solving this acute problem of mankind.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a policy and management tool for planning and decision-making, allowing the identification, prediction and evaluation of the environmental impact of proposed development projects.
7.7.General summary and outlook
It is very clear that, environmental problems could not be solved only by technical means. Therefore technological approaches should be integrated and harmonized with ethical dimension of problems to have concrete and long-term solutions. To achieve the balance between technology and ethical dimension; experts should at least have environmental consciousness in addition to their environmental knowledge. That means; for example for environmental monitoring- it will not be satisfactorily enough to have the knowledge of where and how to get samples, frequency of sampling, stations, how to analyze them or how to evaluate the results of the analyses. It is certainly required for environmental experts to understand the function of each part in the ecosystem and their intrinsic value, not only instrumental value. In other words, "internalized ethical values" necessary to make experts decide and act in a real environment friendly way by feeling themselves as the part of it and feeling nature inside themselves. This book will integrate both knowledge and ethical dimension. Because we could solve the environmental problems if and only if, complete technical information about the problem is supported by insights, environmental awareness.
