also

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/11/discrimination-inequality-and-poverty-human-rights-perspective

A bigger risk for the environmental movement would be de-emphasizing the central place of humans in preserving and protecting the environment as they are critical to this effort, being biggest offenders of environmental degradation.

Best regards,

Debra

Dear sir

Link may be help you

Appreciate your efforts… best wishes

Article Evolution of the environmental justice movement: Activism, f...

also

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/11/discrimination-inequality-and-poverty-human-rights-perspective

There is no doubt that the de-emphasizing the central place presents a bigger risk for the environment.

Interestingly if we compare Russia with Japan (the latter is believed to be overpopulated in terms of comparison of its total population with the size of the territory, whereas the average density of population in Siberia is below 1 resident per sq.km).

Indeed - (traditionally (?) - the density of population in towns and villages in Japan is enormously high. But there are numerous reserved lands with 0 population in Japan. And in this sense, strange as it sounds, Japan differs little from Russia.

However, there is a fundamental difference. Namely, in contrast to Russia in Japan, much care is taken about the environment

Please allow me to repeat the question:

Given:

Which do you think is a bigger risk for the environmental movement: de-emphasizing the central place of humans or making humans too central?

Why?

My answer: Use of the work "risks" to this simpleton is another word for "fear" . Fear is not a word that many adult minds are ready to acknowledge. For it is a characteristic of the child -- and those writing in forums such as this are mostly adults -- ages 21 -- old farts like me 75 -------- and beyond But what about those before? For example Aristotle, Christ, Newton --- and what about Srinivasa Ramanujan ?

The book by Albus and Mystel Engineering of the Mind offers addition insight into an answer to your excellent question. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to share what little insight i have that it might provide you with your brain Ah-ha. Take care and good luck

"De-emphasize " humans can't and won't happen !!!

Next, will we take a role to bring about change may be , back to the old times !!!

Wonder if we can live without anything , we can but would we !!

e.g: Plastic bags / Tobacco / Pop !!!!

I am confused too :)

Wow, I disagree with most of the replies. The greater risk to the environment is to make humans feel so central and so entitled that they can pillage and destroy at will. It hasn't been all that many years that people seemed to think the earth's resources were infinite, and were entirely for our own benefit and comfort. That's what having dominion over everything else means, after all.

Humans need to understand that we are merely one type of organism, which has to coexist in harmony with the rest, or we'll end up degrading the ecosystem to the extent that it our continued survival will be in jeopardy. Even if cockroaches survive.

i think there is no relation with human

In terms of many of the problems that impact our environment, humans have played and do play a central role in creating environmental issues: e.g., islands of plastic waste in the oceans, the death of the Aral Sea, the depletion of the Colorado River, giant algae blooms that result from fertilizer run-off from farm land, etc. So, it would be a mistake to de-emphasize the role of humans in creating the problem.

I agree with dr Nabel