摘要
The attitude of the human species within the environment is becoming a central problem of modern society. For centuries, humanity developed using natural resources as if they were at its complete disposal and endless. Only in the nineteenth century the most advanced scholars in Europe and North America became aware of the diversity of plant and animal species in their natural habitats and of the relationships existing among them, independently from the presence of man; meanwhile, the impact on the environment has continued with steadily increasing consequences. During the second half of the twentieth century the environmental movement developed and at present it is generally accepted that nature conservation is necessary, and that it implies a limit in the use of territory and remarkable costs. The present paper is a critical analysis on the arguments used in an attempt towards a general consensus on nature conservation, and their philosophical fundamentals and validity. Three different approaches are discussed. (1) Anthropocentric approach the present generation accepts renunciation in order to obtain advantages for future generations (availability of resources), i.e. a mainly utilitarian strategy—the ideas of Mayer Abich and Jonas are discussed. (2) Dualistic (metaphysical) approach renounces are accepted following a transcendent law, i.e. as a religious duty—the approach of the Judeo-Christian thinking and in Islam are discussed. (3) Holistic approach humans accept to consider themselves as a component of the ecosystem, which is based on feedback relationships, and consequently if some component of the biosphere is destroyed, something is destroyed also in humans—the approach of Buddhism, A. Schweitzer’s Reverence for life and Naes-Deep Ecology, as well as the opinions of Siep and of Azzone are discussed.