A Global Environmental Curriculum

The need to develop a proper global curriculum to ensure that students are from an early age able to learn about sustaining the environment and taking active steps to achieve it has become important in the twenty first century. This is because it allows for the development of environmental consciousness among students from an early stage of their education so that they can be more proactive in their seeking to ensure environmental sustainability. A lot of literature has been written concerning this subject and it has been highly revealing concerning the diverse issues that have come about as a result of the need for the creation of an adequate curriculum which can be used for the purpose of making sure that environmental sustainability is secured.

The concept of child-centered play has not been adequately used for the purpose of making sure that there is an increase in knowledge concerning the environment in children. They suggest that it is essential for environmental education to be put in the early childhood curriculum because it is the best way through which children can learn about the environment from an early age. Furthermore, it is a means of promoting environmental sustainability through the creation of play-based learning experiences which are designed to make sure that children are provided with knowledge through a pedagogical approach. Such an approach would make it possible for children to learn and develop knowledge concerning environmental conservation early enough to ensure that they grow up knowing the different problems affecting their environment and how best to sustain it for future generations. Edwards and Carter-Mackenzie, in line with Ritchie (2013), are extremely incisive concerning the manner through which environmental education should be conducted because it promotes environmental awareness from early on in the lives of individuals. The ideas presented within this article can also be considered to be the best means through which the global environmental education curriculum can be developed in such a way that it becomes possible for children to acquire environmental knowledge in their formative years. It is also a means, through the use of play, that teachers can be able to impart the knowledge that they have concerning the environment on children while at the same time keeping the latter interested in the issues involved. Furthermore, it would lead to the promotion of greater efforts through which children would be more capable of recognizing the different methods of environmental sustainability that can be applied to achieve greater awareness for the environment and the need to protect it. However, despite the numerous advantages that can be brought about through the introduction of environmental conservation in early childhood education, the means through which it can be effectively achieved are not discussed in the article. The effective implementation of this method into the curriculum would entail making sure that the subject is introduced into play in such a way that children become active participants in the process; meaning that they have to be helped through acquiring the knowledge that they need while at play so that their full attention is given to the subject.

Kennely, Taylor, and Serow (2011) state that the national curriculum that is being developed in Australia is one which puts a lot of stock on the need for teachers to ensure that they teach their students about sustainability. This is especially the case where this curriculum claims to support teachers in every way to ensure that they have the necessary experience to effectively teach sustainability to their students. However, the study conducted by these authors suggests that sustainability is not adequately represented in the curriculum to such an extent that there is a serious possibility that it could eventually be omitted from the teacher education and qualification system at all levels. The lack of proper education concerning sustainability in the educational curriculum in Australia, despite the many comments in support of it, can be considered to be extremely dangerous because students lack the necessary knowledge to ensure that they are sufficiently aware of the environment to take active action to protect it. Furthermore, the lack of emphasis concerning the best way through which sustainability can be included in the curriculum can be considered to be a serious discrepancy because it might lead to a situation where teachers are no longer required to provide environmental education; meaning that students in future will lack the necessary guidance concerning how best to conserve their environment.

This study is extremely relevant because it provides a glimpse of the possible problems that are involved in the Australian curriculum especially when it involves sustainability. Without the active role of the education system, environmental sustainability will not be as important a subject as it should be because it will no longer form an essential part of the curriculum. It is noted that within the Australian education system, teachers are increasingly no longer required to have knowledge concerning sustainability in order to qualify to teach and this is a matter of concern because sustainability is one of the most important issues of concern in the world today. The need to promote sustainability in the education of teachers, especially at a primary level should be considered an essential part of making sure that it remains a significant part of the Australian curriculum. Such knowledge among teachers would go a long way in making sure that students are also taught to have a respect for the environment in such a way that helps in their taking an active part in conservation efforts. Moreover, the addition of sustainability subjects in the development of national curriculum proposals would go a long way in making sure that teachers remain consistent in helping students know more about the environment because it will be an essential part of the education system rather than an afterthought as the current situation is. Sustainability should not only be proposed, but should also be enforced in the Australian curriculum because it will allow for a more focused approach when it comes to the cultivation of a more knowledgeable generation of students concerning the environment.

References

Edwards, S. & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising Early Childhood Education Curriculum through Pedagogies of Play. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 51 – 61.

Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., & Serow, P. (2011). Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 209–218.

Ritchie, J. (2013). Sustainability and relationality within early childhood care and education settings in aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 307-326.

Marxism and Ecologism

Over the last few decades, issues concerning the political involvement in environmental preservation have become prominent. This is because of an increasing awareness concerning the environment as well as the need to ensure that it is protected for the sake of future generations. The need to preserve the environment has become a paramount political issue which has either been adopted or rejected by the different ideological standpoints that occupy the political space today. It is essential to note that the merger of political and environmental ideologies has become a basic part of the politics of the contemporary world and this is the reason why alliances between political parties and environmentalist groups are being formed. Among the most prominent ideologies that have emerged in the contemporary world are Marxism and ecologism; ideologies that can either be compared or contrasted.

According to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. As a result, neither the earth nor nature should be provided importance when it comes to situations where labour is concerned. Labour is the primary concern of anthropocentrism and it is the basis upon which this concept has been developed. As opposed to ecocentrism, anthropocentrism promotes the importance of labour over nature, with the latter being considered to be inconsequential because it does not have a direct effect on the management of labour. The anthropocentric approach recognises that there is need for some form of environmental protection because it allows for the development of a better means through which individuals in society can be able to apply their labour for their own benefit. However, there are instances where the environment interferes with the way that labour is conducted and managed and this creates a situation where it is essential for issues concerning the environment to be set aside so that labour can be given more prominence. This approach further recognises that man does not have any control over the environment and that the latter cannot be brought under control by any means. It is therefore reasonable that man does not concentrate too much on nature or the environment to such an extent that labour and its products come to be ignored.

The ecocentric approach on the other hand is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. This concept recognises that the environment is the most important thing in the world and that it is man’s responsibility to ensure that his activities do not cause it harm. Without the intervention of man, it is believed that the integrity of the environment will become compromised and might end up creating a situation where man as a race, in addition to wildlife, will end up suffering. The ability of man to conduct his activities with utmost consideration for the preservation of nature is essential because it allows for the development of better means through which man and nature can coexist in a constructive manner. This concept is one that indicates that man has a responsibility to nature as well as having a responsibility for nature; meaning that he has to do everything possible so that nature can be preserved, but that its integrity be maintained.

The anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. In this way, the economic value of natural resources should be the main reason why man interacts with nature and this should involve the exploitation of these resources to ensure that the value of labour is increased. Without the resources that are contained within it, nature would not have any value because there would be nothing within it that would ensure that it is not only exploited, but also given the attention that it receives. The ability of man to exploit nature for its resources is the reason why it is important for the economy because it is these resources which make it thrive. The preservation of nature would mean that most of its resources would not be exploited; making it difficult for labour to be employed for the purpose. Such a situation would create a situation where individuals in society would end up living in a primitive way where the inequalities that are present in society would be further maximised; leading to chaos.

The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Nature should not only be exploited for its resources, but there should be means through which these resources are exploited in a responsible manner, so that instead of concentrating on maximising the profits gained; individuals should develop better means of ensuring that their exploitation does not degrade nature. Under such circumstances, ecocentrism is similar in approach to anthropocentrism because the latter also recognises that nature should not be exploited for the purpose of profit but instead to ensure that there is some form of benefit for labour. Without this benefit, it would essentially be useless to exploit natural resources because it would mean that the profits gained would end up benefiting the bourgeoisie. The econcentric approach, however, is opposed to the anthropocentric one where nature can be exploited for its resources without any need to preserve its integrity. Instead, it proposes that any approach that exploits nature and ends up destroying its stability, beauty, or integrity is a wrong one because it does not consider any respect for nature.

While it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. This is especially the case in situations where the environment ends up being unstable as a result of being massively exploited. Not only does it lead to its destruction, but it also creates a situation where the environment becomes hostile to man. The conquest of nature is considered to be futile and any attempt to do so would be detrimental to the welfare of human beings. The stance taken by the anthropocentric approach can be considered to be a contradiction because while it advocates for the unlimited exploitation of nature for the benefit of labour, it also calls for caution because the destabilisation of nature as a result of activities of exploitation would bring about a situation where nature would take its revenge. Therefore, one would suggest that anthropocentrism takes on a middle ground in matters concerning environmental preservation; a situation that makes it questionable as a political concept in the contemporary world where environmental protection is paramount.

The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. This change can be seen through some of the laws that were passed by Russia during the Soviet Union which attempted to reduce the impact of individuals on the environment. One such law forbade the destruction of any non-commercial wild animals except for those that had a potential of either harming the economy or the health of the people within the state. This approach shows a need for man to take responsibility for his actions towards nature and this should be done in such a way that its integrity is protected. The exploitation of nature for its resources is an essential part of human civilisation because it allows for the development of an easier way of life. However, the anthropocentric approach is one which advocates for the primacy of labour over nature, so that nature is used for the latter rather than labour working towards the preservation of nature. There are instances where this approach puts importance in the need to preserve the environment because it is realised that to do otherwise would mean the destruction of life as it is and the end of labour. Among the events that are referred to in this approach as having taken place as a result of man’s manipulation of nature is the Chernobyl disaster, which can be considered to be nature’s way of taking revenge on human attempts to tame it.

It is essential to note that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. This ethical deficiency on the part of developing moral guidelines on how to treat the environment has led to a situation where it has become extremely difficult for man to conduct his activities with consideration for nature. The need to ensure that the use of land as well as other natural resources is conducted in a way that preserves the latter has been forgotten in a bid to ensure that commercial interests are protected. The result is that commercial interests have taken a hand in directing laws concerning the environment, through their lobbies, so that these laws do not in any way interfere with their destructive activities. both of these approaches states that the contemporary society does not recognise the importance of nature and the need to ensure that the environment is preserved in such a way that future generations will be able to exploit its resources while continuing to maintain a balance. The lack of moral obligation towards the environment is blamed by both approaches as being the reason behind the massive levels of degradation that has been taking place and they warn that this disregard might result to disaster for the entire planet.

While the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. Among these is its propagation of there being a need for a proper means of protecting the environment through the development of a set of laws based on the rights of nature. It is through these laws that it can be possible for environmental protection to be brought from the realm of idealism to reality. According to the ecocentric approach, in order to make environmental protection viable, it is essential for the principles guiding the process to be converted to legal concepts that can be used to ensure that the process becomes a reality. This is an approach that has gained traction in recent years and it has led to the beginning of a legal process whose purpose is to gain recognition for the worth of the environment and the need to preserve it.

 In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that according to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. This is countered by the ecocentric approach which is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. In addition, it is stated that the anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Moreover, while it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. Furthermore, it has been noted that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. Finally, while the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment.

Replacement of Traditional Agriculture with Biotechnology

One of the reasons why biotechnology should not replace traditional agriculture is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. This is mainly because biotechnology is profit driven and does not have the interests of farmers at heart. As a profit driven industry, biotechnology can be considered to be a means through which major agricultural corporations are attempting to increase the dependence of society on industrial products to the almost total exclusion of products from traditional farmers. The intensification of farmers’ dependence on industrial products through the adoption of biotechnology would ensure that they end up having to endure restrictions based on intellectual property rights owned by major biochemical corporations. The enforcement of these rights would mean that farmers would be denied the right to not only reproduces, but also to share and store the seeds that they have purchased. Such conditions would be highly detrimental to farmers and would force them to have to purchase expensive industrial products in order to continue practicing agriculture. It should be noted that without the much needed capital in order to purchase biotechnological products, most traditional farmers would be forced out of business, with the market being almost completely dominated by large corporations that are profit driven. Therefore, if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, it would create a situation where it would be difficult for a significant number of people employed in the latter industry to survive the new market conditions. There would be an increase in the number of unemployed while at the same time ensure that agriculture is no longer a viable business except for large corporations that have the capital to survive the market.

If biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. This is especially because it would bring about the marginalization of small farmers because they would not have the resources they need to ensure that they are able to adopt biotechnology in their businesses. Furthermore, in the third world, it has become the norm for farmers to retain some of their crops so that they can be used as seeds during planting season. The system that has been developed by the latter has ensured that they do not lack the means of producing new crops on an annual basis; hence reducing their dependency on outside forces for their survival. The introduction of biotechnology would greatly hamper these farmers because not only would they be removed from the agricultural sector as a result of unfair competition, but they would also end up being left paupers in the process. Large corporations such as Monsanto, which are extremely ruthless in business, would make use of biotechnological products to remain dominant in the market through making sure that their products are cheaper than those produced through traditional agriculture. Countries in the third world would end up suffering because their exports would become compromised by biotechnology and this would be to such an extent that thousands, if not millions of people, would end up being unemployed. Such a situation would have a negative effect on these countries since it would allow for the continued dependence of the third world on economic aid from developed countries.

The introduction of biotechnology would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. Such a situation has already began taking place where large corporations are making a rush in these countries to ensure that they get the best genes from local crops to use in the development of their own biotechnological products. This situation has led to the loss of massive revenues by third world countries which would have used the billions lost to implement development projects at home. The compromising of the ecological sovereignty of the third world has led to a situation where it has become difficult for local farmers to receive the compensation that they deserve for the development of diverse crop strains over a period of many centuries. Instead, large corporations, using their immense resources, have been able to attain the various genetic strains from these farmers, usually without their knowledge, and make huge profits from them. The lack of reward for farmers in the third world can be considered to be as a result of the development of biotechnology by multinational corporations which are essentially profit-making entities which will do so at any given opportunity. Because biotechnology is almost completely in the hands of the private sector, specifically large corporations, it would be inadvisable to allow it to replace traditional agriculture because such a move would make these corporations richer at the expense of those individuals in the third world who have worked hard for centuries to develop diversity among their crops.

The adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. This is because despite its capacity to help in the development of products that enhance biodiversity, biotechnology at the hands of multinational corporations would most likely not be willing to do so. For the most part, the strategy of large corporations is always to ensure that they create as large a market for single products as possible because such a move would help in lesser expenditure while enhancing their profits. Furthermore, through their owning of patents for their various products, corporations will prevent the development of improved varieties of crops on farms; thus hampering continued biodiversity. The influence that most of these corporations have all over the planet would end up undermining the efforts of individual farmers to practice their trade through creating diverse genetic strains of the same products. Instead, the monopoly of biotechnology would make it extremely difficult for poor farmers to have a say in the manner through which crops are developed. They would be forced to give up their livelihood for the sake of satisfying the desires of large corporations which, using their influence, will most likely end up making sure that patent laws protecting them are put in place in all countries within which they have operations. Thus, the biological complexity that has been the mainstay of traditional farming methods will end up being compromised; hurting both human and animal life in the process of the massive genetic erosion that will likely take place.

It has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture. This argument does not put into consideration the potential hazards that would be involved in the process. Biotechnology is essentially being implemented in a bid to patch-up the problems that were brought about through the use of agrochemical products that were promoted by those corporations that have taken a lead in biotechnology. There should be concern about the possibility of pest-resistant plants being able to transfer their genes to their wild relative; effectively leading to unintended consequences that might be harmful to the environment.

In conclusion, the discussion above attempts to show that biotechnology should not be allowed to replace traditional agriculture because it will result in more harm than good. One of the reasons states is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. Furthermore, it has been argued that if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. Moreover, the introduction of biotechnology as a replacement for traditional agriculture would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. In addition, it has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. Finally, the argument against biotechnology has been countered through the argument that that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture.