There is no doubt that our planet faces major threats to its longevity and well being due to the actions of humanity in the past and the current conditions humanity places it under today. Change is in order if human beings are to live harmoniously with nature. A philosophy that claims it is beneficial to solving the problem of how humans can live in nature without destroying it must do three things. First, it must have at its roots a basic appreciation for nature and view of it as a good. Secondly, it must allow for the realization that we can determine and know that harming nature is a bad thing and that we are capable acknowledging that changes and action may be necessary. Finally, this philosophy must allow for some desires, such as taking an active role in helping nature, while at the same time limiting those desires that are harmful and unnecessary. While Epicureanism, Skepticism and Stoicism all contain several ideas in their philosophies that imply they could!.
lead to a useful solution to this problem, Epicureanism does the job best. .
While Skepticism and Stoicism do not implicitly negate or disapprove of an appreciation of nature, they do not place as important an emphasis on it as Epicureanism does. Epicureanism seeks as its ultimate goal ataraxia, a state of non-disturbance. Epicureans view nature as one of the best agents for this. In his letter to Herodotus, Epicurus said this of nature, "I recommend constant activity in the study of nature; and with this sort of activity more than any other I bring calm to my life" (Hackett, p. 6). Since the Epicureans view nature something very beneficial and useful there will certainly be an appreciation for it. With this appreciation for nature undoubtedly comes a respect that would manifest itself in actions that are considerate and not harmful to our planet. .
Making decisions that are beneficial to our planet requires a philosophy that first acknowledges that we can come to a conclusion about the validity of our choices and the actions we take.