 So, now, briefly I will go back to some of the important concept I wanted to tell you on deep ecology and utilitarianism. These are the concepts when somebody is dealing with environmental ethics. They will encounter these two concepts and I think for our good we need to reflect little bit on these two concepts. What do they mean to us? Now, deep ecology is a kind of a movement started by a Noruan philosopher Arna Nes and Nes was talking about in fact advocating a kind of a philosophical method of enquiry about the relationship between human society and other living beings in the world. So, he sought that unless we have a deeper relationship with the natural environment, the nature as a whole, then we will not be able to articulate a proper sense of values that are required for the humanity. That is why he was talking about a kind of ecology which is deep. Now, the concept deep has three meanings, connotes three things. One, the deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment. Now, the deep has these three things. Not everybody encounters things which is problematic. Say for example, my dear friend who was saying that now it is hard, it is rather difficult to teach environmental ethics to our fellow students because they do not listen to us. Now, because they are not exposed to experience. Now, say for example, now the mobile phone, the mobile phone that we use, there is a way to use certain these material. And similarly, there are ways to use certain things. If we do not use them in a proper way, it will have certain impact in our life and that will be hazardous. Somebody should understand this and this understanding requires an experience. So, once you experience certain things deeply, you try to think, you try to question the existing norms and conditions. Say for example, many people, many of us have stated about corruption. Now, the madam was pointing about the use of plastics, plastic bags rather and we know that it is problematic. We know that it has some health concern. It causes some worries to us, but still we have not yet formulated a strict law or we have not followed it very strictly where such things can be permanently banned because our questioning has not been serious. And also, we do not show a kind of a collective commitment. Say for example, a shopkeeper who used to sell things using plastic bag. If you ask, do you have a plastic bag? No. If he says no, that sir, it is for our good that we have stopped plastic bag. Now, if that kind of commitment, it is a collective commitment not only from the side of the purchaser who it is shown, but the people who are selling it also have to be part of this commitment. So, unless we have these three elements, then we will not be able to enhance our ecological knowledge, wisdom. Therefore, ecological wisdom is necessary to talk about a deep ecology. Now, many times as Ness pointed out that we are making by not following rules, rules are made. There are rules, but by not following rules we are making a negative intervention in the world. Whether it is about pesticides, the use of pesticides, whether it is about the use of what you call plastic bags or how to now dispose our waste, which is generated every day. All these things, if it comes to our life, if you reflect carefully, you will find that how much negatively we are intervening in our valued life. It is a negative intervention in the sense that it harms our quality life directly and sometimes indirectly. Therefore, we most of the time, if you are not enlightened enough, then you will be making only negative and negative intervention. The third thing which Ness is pointing out, Ness proposes this theory of deep ecology taking clue from Gandhian theory of nonviolence. Yesterday, people were talking about moral examples. I was saying that who are the examples whom we can cite before our students, so that they motivate morally. We live in a society where people do not know. I am sure people after 50 years will not know who was Gandhi. We had such a moral stalwart Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation. If you ask what Gandhi has written, what are the key ideas of Gandhi or what are the key ideas of the important ideas of Ravindranath Tagore, all these thinkers who have really spent some time and have thought about the well-being of India, people will really not come to know. You ask a fellow who are the best poets in your region. I am sure your student will not be able to tell the best two, three poets name. But if you ask who is your favorite hero in the film industry, they will be able to tell. So that is the society in which we are living. Why people are not listening to us? Because of various reason and one of the reason is that we are a knowledge society of a very poor quality. We do not really know what kind of knowledge is necessary for good living, for a healthy living. Now keeping that in the background, many thinkers like Nes have followed not only Gandhi, but Buddhist principle very seriously because Buddha was the first person who argued vehemently against the animal sacrifices which was happening in the Indian society. So if you talk about non-violence as the moral principle, then two important religions come to mind. One is the Buddhist, another is the Jain. So they are the very inspiring ideas that how to maintain harmony with nature. Now deep ecology gives importance to several things like one of the ideas is that it tries to nurture the notion of ecological self and it also tries to promote the idea that every living beings have intrinsic value and every living beings are to be protected for the well-being of the humanity. So that is the idea and we need to see that how deeply we are connected with others. So it is not a fragile connection that I am talking about. It is not a selfish connection that we need to entertain in our everyday life. Rather we need to consolidate our self and see that how deeply we are connected with our fellow beings and with all the beings and things that are existing in the environment. That is what the deep ecology tries to promote. Apart from that Nes argues a kind of principles. There are eight principles and these are the first five principles stated here that all life has value in itself. When we say all life has value in itself is to emphasize this idea of an intrinsic value. All life has value in itself means all life are intrinsically valuable and independent of its usefulness to humans. So whether something has got some kind of usefulness for the humanity that is fine. But we have to treat that entity over and above what kind of usefulness it has got to us and we have to treat that with ascribing the intrinsic value. The richness and diversity that contributes to the well-being of the humanity. That is the second point which Nes considers is significant. That if humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity except to satisfy the vital needs in a responsible way. So our interventions are negative. We do not intervene as I was pointing out. We do not intervene in a responsible way. So that is a dangerous trend of often we find out or often we encounter in the youth. Mostly when people do not listening to certain things which they are supposed to listen or if humanity does not listen to or does not reflect upon things which is a kind of a bare necessity for all of us. Then we are not making a responsible intervention. That is what is required. If we do not know what is the usefulness of a national park and say for example in Mumbai people are talking about taking away some part of RA Colony for developmental purpose. RA Colony is fairly a green page or a green land which is available here and for all good purpose that can be utilized that can be kept intact. But if you say none of our developmental purpose that is a necessity. We will take only few acres of it. So it is like if somebody is suffering from a wound and doctor says now that has to be cut. Now that part of the body has to be operated in such a way that it is cut. So what is happening here in this context is that in the name of development we have been operating our own bodies and looking for a better life. So when you do that it harms more than the existing conditions. So the impact of human has been rapidly excessive the cause which is the reason why the environment is degrading. It is degrading to a host level. So human lifestyle the fifth condition principle is that human lifestyle and populations are the key elements of this impact. Now we need to restrict population the growth of the populations. So more the world is thickly populated. Environmental problems will be more visible. So therefore population growth is also a problem which Nesa points out that then the sixth point is that the diversity of life including cultures can flourish only with the reduce of human impact. So more they are positively intervene more they restrict themselves and do not make any negative intervention. Then we can see that how we bring a good impact or how a human society or how human lifestyle is day by day becoming better. So that is how one can look at things. The other idea is that the basic ideological political and economic technological structure must therefore change. So we need to rethink on what kind of technology that we are using. We need to also rethink on other issues that what kind of political system in which we are actively participating. What kind of economic agenda that we have when we talk about the future generation. So all that has to be taken into consideration. Most of us feel that politicians are corrupt. Now politicians are corrupt because we are corrupting a corrupted society. So politicians are part and parcel of this society. They are they are not they have not come from some other world. So when we think of a better world we need to think that what kind of ideology that we follow in our life. What kind of political institutions that we have set up to regulate our everyday conducts and what kind of economic perspective that we have for our future generation. All these are connected and we need to see them. We need to integrate them and see that how they are related to environmental issues. Then the last point is that the those who accept the foregoing points have an obligation to participate in implementing the necessary changes and to do so peacefully and democratically. So a peaceful engagement, a nonviolent engagement is warranted and is been emphasized by Arne Ness. So that whatever judgment that we take whatever policy that we is been made by the state is been democratically made has been peacefully made without damaging the environment, without damaging the way that well being of other communities, without harming the interest of the other communities. Therefore in a democratic society we can think of a peaceful life, but in autocratic societies we cannot think of a peaceful living because the autocrats will always look after what is beneficial to him or what will how to satisfy his self interest all of that. So therefore democratic society is a much better option for peaceful living and peace can only be delivered if and only if we live in harmony with others. If we cultivate virtues that transforms our usual character then we can deliver peace. Peace will not be delivered if we are not compassionate. The Buddha who talked about human well being emphasized that Karuna is one of the highest virtues. Karuna could be translated as compassion. It is not love, it is a higher thing is a higher kind of love. So therefore it is important that we need to see how certain things can be delivered. So when you read deep ecology you find that these are the problem pollution is a problem, resources are problem then there are certain other kinds of ethics, see ethics, land ethics. What Arnais is pointing out that most of our approach to address this environmental problem is a shallow address. So we are not responding with a deep ecological approach. So our mode of response has to be changed. One is on utilitarianism is a very technical concept. It is an ethical doctrine which emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people and it was argued by Jeremium Bentham and he says the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is something which will be the founding principle of utilitarian approach. Now utilitarian approach has also takes a kind of a turn when we talk about subjective well-being, subjective pleasure. If we say that something is only good for the humanity, something which will make humanity happy then that should not be the concern. The utilitarians must reform themselves as we are talking about preference utilitarianism advocated by Peter Singer who points out that our community is not only confined to the human beings. Our community is now involves many other beings which are non-human. So therefore in our moral principle when we talk about the well-being we need to talk about the well-being of all, all the members. It is not the subjective well-being. It is not the well-being of a particular community called the human. From that perspective one can re-articulate the utilitarian approach. Yes sir, you have any question? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yes sir, in your lecture you talked about global citizenship. Yes, yes. And you were talking about Indian culture. Yes. Yes sir. So here sir Indian-Indian scenario we can see two distinct societies. One those who are living in metropolitan cities and those who are living in rural areas. Yes. The cities people they are self-centered and they are having their own arena. Yes. Of ecological thing. Yes. And rural people still they are innocent. Yes. So what is your opinion about this sir? When you talk about environmental education. Yes. So to whom to give this environmental education. No it is, see the education is for everybody. It is our villagers, people who live in rural areas there they respect nature because traditionally they have been respecting nature. They have to be also enlightened that how valuable it is they have to be informed to become an informed citizen is something which is necessary. Now, when it comes to the urban population people who are living in urban areas they have not bothered about environment. Therefore urban people those are generally educated but they also have to be educated further in the light of certain environmental issues that are that we face or that we will be facing in future. So, both have to be educated. Environmental ethics or environmental studies does not make a distinction between urban and rural. Everybody is part of it. As I talked about Vasudeva Kutumbakam. No, no this whole idea about the whole earth is related to all of us and we belong to that world is not it. And this belongingness does not make a distinction between whether I come from a developed society or whether I come from rural areas or whether I belong to urban areas. So, there is no distinction here conceptually there is no distinction but this belongingness has to be understood from the deep ecological perspective. So, that we have a better understanding of the world. Yes sir my question is that as we know that the many product safety tests are conducted on the animals. Do we really have the rights to experiment on the animals? Then if we have rights then what about the rights of the animals? So far people who are advocating animal rights they are arguing in favour of them precisely because there was no existing animal rights. There was not existing animal rights but in many cases this right has been already coded has been already taken into consideration. But some people are misusing some people are not following the rules they are violating the rules when they it comes to testing. So, that is something wrong which has been happening. In many countries it has been there particularly in UK and in America such law is already existing. Sir another one question is there is the use of service animals and based off the burden considered as a exploration. Sometimes we exploit sometimes see we think of when a farmer takes his bullock to farm and in the 47 degree temperature you cannot plow your land. So, we have to also see that what is tolerable for an animal is noted. So, sometimes we exploit them and I mean many occasions as the other participant was pointing out many occasions such animals are been exploited in our entertainment industries and that is something which people pointed out that it is wrong. So, we should not exploit them. We should treat that animal that it has got some value in our life and it is also valuable that is the concern. It has got some value and it has also some value for our well-being. So, both has to be taken into both the points has to be taken into consideration. Sir another question is there I would like to know your opinion regarding the use of animals in the research. Is it in the box of the ethics of the animals? It is certainly not, but unfortunately as I pointed out in many countries human beings are used. So, forget about animals. In many occasions human beings are being used to test such drugs. What will do with that? It is my talking about opinion I think you can further understand. Good afternoon sir. We have a question. So, what is Ecoscentrism and how is it relevant while considering a Sentinel in an ecosystem? I was using these two terms life centric and eco centric simultaneously. Actually, I do not make any conceptual distinction between these two concepts. What I meant there is this that life is a kind of a founding principle and we are all part of one ecosystem. So, that makes a change in the previous theory which was called a human centric ethical theory to a life centric ethical theory. Now, once we place ourselves within one ecosystem we make our life eco centric or life centric. That is the position I was trying to take. You have delivered a very good informative lecture and my question is this that we are still using the animals for the lab purposes as well as a large number of genes have been transferring from humans to animals like pig. And by this way we are diluting the concept of humanness. What do we say that this gene belongs to humans or this belongs to pig? But the scientists are doing these things at very high rate. So, is this ethically right to harm or exploit the animal in these cases? If not, then why the things are getting practised? First of all, if we try to maintain a kind of a standard where animals are not to be used as a kind of a means for human well-being. Then the question comes to what extent we can use them or we should not use them. That is the second level question. So, if you are strictly following the first one that we are not going to we ought not use the term we ought not use animals. Then we cannot further dilute it. The second is that to what extent we can use that depends. Once you loosen your standards then you have some kind of a you do not have a limitation. So, the regulatory board should really make a kind of a judgment on this that whether they should be used at all or they should be used or not used depending on certain critical situations that kind of things. So, far as India is concerned, we have not come to that level so seriously. I think there is a need to come to that level. I read an article in the newspaper that one state actually I am not remembering the name of the state. It has banned the use of animals in the labs for the dissection purposes. So, it is a very commendable step that we should follow throughout the country to stop harming the animals. That is a good thing. We should actually propagate it. We should spread the message to other states as well that this is possible. We have animals by some other ways because this is the word of technology. So, we should stop harming the animal as much as possible. Okay. Thank you sir for your answering. Thank you very much. Hello sir. Yes. Sir, my question is environmental ethics is a subjective matter. Okay. And the whole idea of framing of rules and regulations in order to prevent pollution. So sir, I would like to know your opinion about that. I will tell you my opinion. The point is now you might have heard of a story that there was a king and the king suggested or desired to have a pond full of milk, made a appeal to all his fellow citizens that you must bring a pot of milk and pour it on that particular pond. Everybody thought that I will pour a pot of water since my neighbor will be going for a pot full of milk, then water and milk will be mixed so well. I will not be caught. If this is the thinking, this is indeed a subjective thinking. Is not it? And the king found on the next day that everybody has followed that principle subjectively and the pond is full of water not milk. I am sure that you might have read this story. So the appeal here is that environmental ethics is not subjective. It cannot be subjective because environment is not mine. Whether I follow the rules or not, that is a separate thing. But rules or standards are universally applicable and that does not make ethics a subjective reality. Thank you very much.