Is the environment inherently valuable and why?

Disclaimer: I am a misanthrope and I support environmental protection, if only for sentimental reasons.
**************************

I never thought about it much, but I had a conversation about the environment with a friend of mine over some kimchi last week. Specifically - what intrinsic value/worth does the environment actually have? In other words, why not **** the Earth and say "*******"?

Before you jump to post the obvious answer - I am fully aware that if the environment continues to be abused by humans, and if the concept of climate change proves to be true, and that no preventative measures are taken - there will be severe economic, social, and health effects on cultures all over the world, including our own. This can be seen as "inherently bad" for humankind. Or even inherently bad for our nation, as a nation's principal purpose is self-sustainability.

BUT - humor me and assume the following for a moment:

• Humans **** the Earth up beyond repair
  
• It becomes WaterWorld / Hell / otherwise unliveable
  
• All animal species become extinct
  
• Humans develop the technology to colonize the moon/Mars
  
• All of humanity is saved and lives in a self-sustainable environment on the moon/Mars with no further damage to those environments, courtesy of science

What we have done here is taken away the issue of human sustainability, and assumed it to be guaranteed. Not only for some humans - but even on the political level (all nations retain the amount of power and resources they had on the Earth).

This is the framework in which the environmental question becomes most interesting. With humans protected, what is the inherent value of the Earth and its ecosystems?

Do you believe the Earth is valuable because:

• All fauna (and maybe even flora) is "sacred" because it was put on this Earth by God? And so we should respect it and preserve it? Now take away religion. Is that the only reason to value the Earth?
  
• "I can't explain it, but I feel that nature is inherently important. It represents balance and peaceful equilibrium." What about the idea that entropy, or rather chaos, is inherently natural? The Earth was a festering ball of noxious gases, and it will be again in some age. What is inherently good about nature. Is it not only a phase in the Earth's life cycle?
  
• Because clearly we are doing something unnatural here. We are using technology and machinery and factories for our own profit. These things are not found in nature, but are manmade products, and for that reason are not as inherently good as things found in nature. Why can't we live in accord to nature's laws? Playing with a perfect ecosystem can only lead to bad things. But are humans not a species formed through evolution like everything else? Our higher awareness and intelligence have allowed us to use technology as no other species has. In that sense, anything that has been borne of the human mind is "natural".
  
• Because we should present the Earth for future generations, so they can enjoy it as we have. In our hypothetical example, humanity survives and flourishes on another planet. What inherent value does the 3rd rock from the sun have over the 4th?

Interested to hear some thoughtful points of view. And please realize I am not saying any of the arguments above are right or wrong. I'm just interested in starting a discussion on the subject.

Bumped for awesomeness.

Because I don't want to live on the ******* moon.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

• Humans develop the technology to colonize the moon/Mars

Because this assumption is unlikely in the time period for global warming. But to answer your question, I believe in maintaining what I consider to be a very well constructed and extraordinarily complex machine. I just happen to appreciate fine craftsmanship and hate to see a good piece of work get destroyed by someone's carelessness.

I don't have a lot of interest in playing, other than to point out that by living (and breathing) in NYC you are exposed to air that science and regulatory agencies consider physically unhealthy. In other words, you may be slowly dying due to air quality. Now do you give a **** about the environment?

Fail for posting a DT topic in General Chat.

Yes, giant man-eating bears roaming the frozen north is ******* awesome! Any thing that is ******* awesome! has inherent value, therefore the environment, and its attendant ******* awesome! giant man-eating bears, has inherent value.

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of interest in playing, other than to point out that by living (and breathing) in NYC you are exposed to air that science and regulatory agencies consider physically unhealthy. In other words, you may be slowly dying due to air quality. Now do you give a **** about the environment?

I care about the environment for my personal selfish reasons. Of course! But clearly you did not understand the question being asked. Is there any inherent value in it? There is no question that as a person, as a country, as a race, as a species, we have interest to see the environment preserved. But that is a selfish reason. What is the INHERENT value of the environment, removed from the human lens?

I think this is why we should protect the environment:

it has no value in a moral sense, no, but it's nice looking and we want to keep it around

plus energy efficiency measures can cost less than ****** the earth

Originally Posted by odoreater

Click to expand...

I think this is why we should protect the environment:

Again, you aren't reading the question correctly.

Originally Posted by sunror

Click to expand...

it has no value in a moral sense, no, but it's nice looking and we want to keep it around

plus energy efficiency measures can cost less than ****** the earth

First point: Agreed, from a sentimental standpoint it is nice.

Second point: Sure, but is energy efficiency (read economic benefit for humanity) the only reason to protect the environment? If so, it is again a selfish human reason vs. an inherent value. Your first reason was an inherent value, and one I agree with, but not particularly compelling for a logical argument.

Nothing has any value, but this thread. It has a value of one star,

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

Again, you aren't reading the question correctly.

No, I read the question correctly, but it was a stupid question, so I decided to answer a different question entirely.

I'm not sure what kind of answers you are looking for to your original question - answers like "God created the earth in his image, so we should keep it that way, bla bla bla..."?

There is nothing inherently good or valuable about "nature", which it seems you are defining here as the Earth's biosphere. These are man-made concepts and do not exist independently.

From a human point of view, it is obviously foolish to the highest degree. If there was technology in existence to allow for human life on other planets, celestial bodies or any other places, destroying the Earth's biosphere and resettling would at the very least be highly uneconomical. And of course there is the issue of causing suffering to other sentient beings, which might be wrong on some people's moral compasses.