(CL) Leaving Human Terms Behind for real?

Well, I was sort of right the first time around. With "Human" as having form or attribute representative of human nature. It is human nature to be individualistic, since each person has their own mind and own will, desires, needs, and others.

So, "Human terms" comes out to mean something more like an individualistic mindset, where each person thinks mainly about themselves and their own advancement, whatever is convenient for them.

Thinking in human terms has the effect of separating nature and society and thinking only of the latter, making the former merely resources and commodities that should be exploited for immediate commercial profits.

"It's a mode of existence that simply doesn't think that environment matters that much." (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)*

What happens, then, if we leave human terms behind?

Unlike my original answer, it looks as if it could be more of a positive thing.

If we put our selfish individualism aside, we could realize the problems that are beginning to plague the world and actually do something about it. If people would look past their own interests, we could possibly spend a lot trying to prevent what we would spend SO much more trying to fix.

We, as one human race, could race to prevent, the following:
"Potential disruptions as a result of storms, cooling in Europe, droughts in agricultural regions and such things as sea level rises are what drives much of the concern about climate change."*

Without, or instead of, the shunting of responsibility and accountability to those countries with too little power to do anything about this passing along of consequences. After all, the book does also say that, "If these disruptions coincide with major warfare in the Middle East or some other source of trade disruption, the potential for human suffering will be immense."*

Pretty clear message. But wait...there's more to me.

The thing that annoys me though, about the discussion of this concept in the book is that it is still so much in human terms. Even though it questions the human individualistic mindset, it is still so limited.

One of the questions phrased goes, "Environmental justice for whom?"* For whom??? Why not for the sake of the beauty of the environment than the selfish sake of the good of mankind and mankind alone? The concern for the environment discussed in the book still revolves around human interests.

So how bout we leave human terms behind, a better effort at it, at least. There are so many artists who depict the beauty of the environment, be it natural landscapes or urban cityscapes. Wouldn't it be nice, even in this class of globalization and development, to not only consider the development of the human race but also for the planet that we live on? For its own preservation and not for fear of what will happen to us when the consequences of civilization-induced pollution finally tip the scales.