For each letter below, group your responses into one Word document, with each essay lettered as they are here. In general, each of the questions requires a 2.53 page essay (typed, double-spaced, 12 pt. font, 1 inch margins) to answer effectively. The overall page count for the exam should therefore be 78 pages. Do not add a cover page; just type the name in the top left corner, with class typed below that.
The best essays will be detailed and thorough (e.g. answering all parts of each question, paying attention to nuance in the prompts), as well as clearly and cleanly presented (i.e., well-written, spell-checked, etc.). You do not need to provide a separate bibliography as long as you make it clear in your in-text citations where the material in question was taken from, e.g.: (Leopold, p. 130).

A. In the early years of the American environmental movement in the 1960s, concern over the risks posed by chemicals in our environment (e.g., DDT and Rachel Carsons Silent Spring) and overpopulation (e.g., Paul Ehrlichs book, The Population Bomb) painted a frightening picture of human environmental destruction. Debate over the seriousness of our environmental impacts continues today, with authors like James Gustave Speth (in Moral Ground) and Erle Ellis (in his NYT op-ed on population in Canvas) drawing very different conclusions about the seriousness of environmental problems like overpopulation, with different notions of the limits of human economic and technological growth.

In your essay, (1) briefly discuss the arguments of Carson, Speth, and Ellis concerning the human impact on the environment (you can also include Ehrlich from the Population Bomb video if youd like). (2) What do their views share in common, and what distinguishes them from one another? (3) Where do you think each author places the moral responsibility for creating AND solving our environmental problems? (4) Which argument is the most compelling and persuasive in your view? Defend your answer.

B. Based on your reading and the lecture material, (1) what exactly did Lynn White mean when he wrote (in his essay, The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis) that Christianity was one of the most anthropocentric religions the world has seen — and what evidence did he offer to support this judgment? (2) As weve seen, scholars and theologians have since challenged Whites views in this essay, arguing instead that there are other ideas in the Judeo-Christian tradition that are more suitable for building a respectful ethical attitude toward nature. What are these ideas? [Here you should refer directly to the relevant readings in Moral Ground for the environment & religion discussion in Unit 1, i.e., at least two of the following essays: McFague, Borg, Robinson, Kaplan, Perry.] (3) Do these alternative ideas about religion and the environment in Moral Ground provide a significant challenge to the anthropocentrism of Western religion? Why/why not?

C. What does it mean to claim (1) that nature has intrinsic value, and how does this position differ from arguments that nature (i.e., individual organisms, species, and/or ecosystems, etc.) has only instrumental value? (2) How do different understandings of natures moral standing/status (i.e., different views of what counts in a moral sense) explain the differences between the major approaches in environmental ethics covered in Unit 2: weak/enlightened anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism? [Make sure you describe and distinguish each of these ethical outlooks, including any nuance, in your answer]. (3) Finally, which position do you think is most persuasive as a justification for protecting the environment (and why)?