Wiki states that ‘A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[3] although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Ho’mo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.’ This can make one “fatalistic” but it still seems wrong for humans to push other species into extinction. Is this an anthropomorphism of non-human nature?

Each creature is unique, and many nations have historically had differing relationships towards them (think indigenous fishing rights), so it is good that each creature and its relationship to individual States is considered separately. That said an international consensus on species protection is also vital as it would be dreadful for species to disappear through a vortex effect.

The oceans present a horrendous problem for the ‘world community’: since no individuals have fishing rights in international waters, every individual can hoover up the poor fish. Whales, presumably because of their loveability, have rights which are respected by most nations. Would it be better to have a sustainable stewardship policy for all creatures of the sea (including allowing sustainable whale fishing)?

The conflict between people and nature is nicely illustrated in this example of a ferry striking a mother whale. [ http://www.news.com.au/national/ferry-travelling-across-sydney-harbour-may-have-hit-a-whale-en-route-to-manly/story-fndo4bst-1226443782020 ] People are generally delighted with the presence of mother and baby whales in the harbour, so this news story is likely to prompt moves to better protect them during their stay in the harbour and on their migration north.

Another of the increasing interactions between nature and the human environmnent happened a short time previously when ORCA dealt with a dead male whale carcass which washed up on the beach. [ http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/wait–for–big-seas-to-wash-whale-out-of–ocean-pool-20120801-23dy8.html ] There isn’t much news commentary on why this sub-adult male did/should have died?

Lets hope if we learn to do the right thing by nature whales wont go extinct soon.

Indiginous cultures provide an excellent model for sustainable principles and, on a Malthusian basis, I assume we will have to follow their example at some point. The factor which has let us escape Malthus’ prediction for two centuries is technical change.
The interesting and encouraging example for those who would like to see fewer humans on earth is Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan and many other countries would be in similar positions if they banned immigration.
My views are:
1) Parts of the world should managed, like gardens, for humans. This would include cities and agriculture – PROVIDING, they were managed on a multi-objective basis
2) Other, large, parts of the world (including the Aral Sea in 1950) should be ‘set apart’ as ‘not for further human exploitation’. Antarctica is the best example of this so far. The word I would use for them is ‘sacred’ in the ancient sense of ‘set apart for reverence’
3) National ‘Parks’ are not sacred space. As the term implies, they are equivalent to urban parks: places for human recreation (and for exercising ‘rangers’ in mock-military outfits and vehicles’.
Medieval ‘stewards’ (etymology: from stig “hall, pen” + weard “guard”) knew their masters’ wishes. The problem for Christian Ecologists assuming a stewardship role is a lack of clarity about God’s intentions. Historians of the evolutionary process, which results from Nature’s Laws, tell us that ‘in the long term, all species become extinct’. Humans seem destined for an early exist and, if this is God’s intention, then un-sustainable behaviour may accord with his Will.

However, from my knowledge of indigenous culture and increase and decrease ceremonies it is possible to imagine a very real form of nature stewardship which is also akin to familial relations with nature.

Perhaps gardening is one form of dominion? And maybe the refashioning of natural resources into architecture is too. If so, in these activities, it would seem to be good to consider the ecological consequences of these actions as far as it possible. In Law there are discussions about giving nature standing, but nobody seriously considers that either trees or animals would represent themselves. We do not seem to have adequately overcome the communication barrier here to make that possible, at least yet.

Yes instinctive reactions are important. True, often after acting on impulse you can think better of it. I am not sure whether animals do any reassessment of their decisions of this sort?
Baser instincts?

Well perhaps the desire to expand the human population at the expense of wild nature or even each other is an example of this. It would certainly seem we all have an individual responsibility to plan our families. How this extends beyond the family unit to State control and population policy at local and world scales I am not sure. China’s one child policy is a famous example of State policy at the level of the individual and it tended to disadvantage girls.

Again indigenous cultures sort to maintain sustainable populations in balance with nature. So there is a model for what this might look like.

But perhaps our contemporary success at industrialisation and divorcing ourselves from natural rythms by control of nature has skewed our perspective on what is both reasonable and responsible to do? It is not all bad. The elimination of diseases certainly seems to be a positive. Also task specialisation, increased communications and transportation has meant we can to some extent smooth out the toughs and peaks of the good and bad times. There are very few famines in the first world now.

I am not very happy with the concept of ‘stewardship’ because it gives humans a superior power and assumes they have superior knowledge. Darwin, always thinking about the survival of the fittest, wrote that ‘But to return to our more immediate subject; although some instincts are more powerful than others, thus leading to corresponding actions, yet it cannot be maintained that the social instincts are ordinarily stronger in man, or have become stronger through long-continued habit, than the instincts, for instance, of self-preservation, hunger, lust, vengeance, &c. Why then does man regret, even though he may endeavour to banish any such regret, that he has followed the one natural impulse, rather than the other; and why does he further feel that he ought to regret his conduct? Man in this respect differs profoundly from the lower animals.’ So if the baser instincts are strong then humans must be expected to act in base ways. Darwin regarded man as ‘just’ another animal. He was not an athiest but tended to agnosticism and, as a young man, thought God had set up the Laws of Nature but did not intervene in human affairs on a daily basis. Is it a Law of Nature that we should expand the human population at the expense of ‘wild nature’? I hope not!

Yes the distinction between what God created and the right to life is also interesting. And it may help inform the debate about stewardship. God is responsible for the existence of all things, but it is within the free will of man to kill life.

For this reason there is the prohibition ‘Thou shalt not kill’. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder ] The Jewish religion connects this with blood guilt and is a prohibition not against the taking of all life but the taking of innocent life.

How nature is considered in this dialogue about innocent life is an interesting question as we do not think of nature as innocent or guilty (of crimes etc). So by definition nature is innocent, but is also probably not considered moral in the way humans are? Perhaps only moral beings can be either innocent or guilty?

Perhaps the stewardship should be seen in the frame of legitimate use, ie the good or bad use of nature? In Christian understanding man and nature are considered together under the label of ‘creatures/creation’. All creatures/creation should be used in a positive creative way not in a negative destructive way.

Does mainstream Christianity see ‘Man’ as separate from ‘Nature’? Surely God created all the Creation so that if Man has a right to life then so do all the living things which God created. Or is this nullified by the ‘dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth?’ Ecological Christianity interprets ‘dominion’ as a duty of care (‘stewardship’), rather than as a right to endlessly exploit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_environmentalism#Basic_beliefs

I believe members of the Olympic Family are doing the decent thing and giving up their rights to exclusive transport lanes and vacant seats at the Games. As with the Gods of Mount Olympus, they are influenced by human passions as well as by their Godly Natures. http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/906753-david-cameron-and-jacques-rogge-use-public-transport-at-london-2012

Unfortuneately most of texts around the debate on the right to life centre on abortion and reproductive rights, and this is true also of Buddhism, however the principle is much deeper and broader. [ http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/tsomo.html ]

Perhaps a more fullsome debate would clarify issues of the right to life as much as issues surrounding nature and the right to exist?

Perhaps members of the Olympic Family if asked would be happy to give seats that they don’t intend using to athletes not competing and family and relatives of Olympians who undoubtedly would be the most enthusiastic cheer squad and incredibly grateful for the opportunity?

Otherwise maybe a seat lottery could both raise money (for future sports talent development etc)and solve the problem of rows and rows of empty seats when the Olypmic Family do not attend.