The main philosophical question of the contemporaneity consists in that how far mankind is capable to change "direction of development" and to provide itself a Sustainable Future. Today it is obvious that any planetary actions driven by values of modern technocratic (material) civilization assume great risk and can lead tothe global ecological catastrophe. Consequently, the search for new values of civilization development has a truly decisive importance for man and mankind. In our opinion, Sustainable Development and Environmental Ethics are the main components of a new value paradigm of civilization’s transformation. To emphasize fundamental novelty of the above-named value basics of a future civilization and its alternative character with respect to the modern technocraticculture, we introduce the concept of "ecological civilization". We imagine the ecological civilization as the ideal form of integrity preservation of the Whole-Life-System with a view to provide sustainable future for mankind. This is spiritually oriented and highly moral society because the ecological imperative, as a matter of fact, coincides with the ideal of spirituality. We connect prospects of ecological (spiritual) civilization with forming of planetary value consciousness on principles of Environmental Ethics.

Holism in environmental ethics is concerned with a harmonious relationship between man and nature. Hinduism seeks to identify and evaluate the distinctive ecological attitudes, values and practices of human beings by making clear their relations with the intellectual and ethical thought within scripture, ritual, myth,symbols, cosmology, and sacrament. In Hinduism the relation between man and nature is like the relationship between the microcosm (Pindānda) and the macrocosm (Brahmānda). The Panċamahābhuta in the Hindu tradition emphasizes that God is assigned to every bhutas, and human beings have no specialauthority over the other nonhuman. Even the Yoga system of Pātanjali also tries to integrate environmental policies with the daily needs of human beings. Hindu philosophy believes that an animal killer is considered as a murderer and goes directly to the hell. This justifies the intrinsic value of the nonhuman species, which entail them to come under the purview of morality. On the basis of the various attitudes in Hinduism we can develop an ecological paradigm and strategy which is based on the concept of Vasudheiva Kutumbakam: every entity and organism is a part of one large extended family which is presided over by the eternal mother Earth. This position will help us to formulate a global environmental ethics by individuals, theologians, environmental philosophers and groups, scientists, politicians, economists, industrialists, and different government and non-governmental social organizations.

This piece explores the proposition that environmental restoration is the only acceptable alternative to a world left with diminishing natural regions. The article reviews the ethical debate concerning the moral obligation of humankind to restore regions that have been stripped of their resources. It demonstrates thatthrough the assistance of both legislative and technological measures nature can be renewed to spawn healthy ecosystems when permitted to do so. Furthermore, the article claims that the restoration thesis is proven by the paradigm of the Adirondack region – a region that was once clear-cut and enabled to restore itself through both rewilding and the “Forever Wild” clause in the New York State Constitution. The article is particularly timely and provocative given the current Bush Administration’s environmental policies.

In the history of ethical thoughts of China and the West, ethical relations are always regarded as social relations among people, and the objects to which ethical norms apply are targeted for social business or man’s behavior. What traditional ethics concerns is ethical relationship among people or ethical feature of socialbusiness or man’s behavior. By comparison with it, environmental ethics has a good reputation for its research on ethical relationship between human being and natural environment. It has been discussing and reconstructing ethical relationship between man and nature from the very beginning, and requires ethical solicitude or moral concern for natural environment. As a result, environmental ethics has to answer the question how it is possible. However, the mainstream views in environmental ethics, based on the position of moral expansion and non-anthropocentrism, can't and won't explain how environmental ethics is possible. What environmental ethics deals with is no other than the ethical relationship between man and man represented by the relationship between man and nature, what it confirms is no other than our obligations and duties to others and next generations when dealing with the relationship between man and nature, and finally, the criterion of evaluation it pursues in dealing with the man-nature relationship is no other than the integrated and long-run interest of all human beings. All these are the ground on which the contemporary environmental ethics stands possibly.

Physical science is coming to an increasingly clear understanding of natural environmental changes, their causes and their effects on the landscape. Human beings have lived through significant climate variability in historical periods, and through repeated periods of relatively sudden climate change, as well asmultiple other drastic natural events in prehistory. In this paper I propose that we should take into account the cultural dimension when considering adaptation to drastic natural events, such as powerful storms (hurricanes), whose intensity may grow as a result of climate change. I discuss an example of a cultural pattern that offers an alternative conception of natural processes to the mainstream of Western societies, and point out how such alternative conceptions of the human‐natural relationship also imply alternative value systems. I conclude that a deeper understanding of the cultural dimension of human responses to drastic natural events may be of significant value in the development of resilience to events of the sort that characterise climate change.

The emerging ecophilosophy is the expression of a philosophical perspective deeply attentive to the threatened complex natural world. It is an answer to global ecological crisis that we currently face, and that is considered by environmentalists as the result of the arrogant cultures built on the dichotomy man-nature.The European modern culture promoted and established an anthropocentric logic of human self-enclosure that is made responsible for our failure to consider ourselves as ecological beings. The issue concerned here is that of an eventually truly and purely human nature. Ecophilosophy proposes a reflection on man’s being-in-the-world ways in order to understand humanity as part of the world, not standing outside, and to evaluate the ontological and the ethical relevance of such understanding.

The phenomenon of global warming, the anthropogenic theory of its genesis and some of the implications of that theory are introduced as a case-study of a global environmental problem involving issues of equity between peoples, generations and species. We should favour the proportioning of emission quotas topopulation, if the charges of anthropocentrism and of discrimination against future generations can be avoided. It is argued that these charges can be replied to satisfactorily, if emissions totals are set low enough for the likely needs of other species and other generations. There should also be limits to the inter-state trading of quotas to ensure that all countries retain enough of their quotas to satisfy basic needs. The anthropogenic theory might instead be held to favourtying emissions quotas to aggregate historical emissions of the last two centuries. But intergenerational equity requires a sustainable international regime, based on universal principles rather than history.

In this paper I discuss two views that focus on the natural environment, namely (1) a western or “W” view (hereafter W) basedloosely on the kind of liberal outlook offered by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and (2) a primal or “P” view (hereafter, P) stemming from environmental teachings of primal peoples. I suggest that while the W tradition has produced many truly helpful and comfortable amenities, it is nevertheless oriented toward commitments to resource acquisition and “detached” objectivity of sorts that could ultimately lead human beings down paths of predictable and tragic destruction. I conclude that P needs to be seriously considered and, where possible, utilized to remold W to achieve a view with maximal environment-preserving possibilities.

With the rise of Practical and Professional Ethics has risen Environmental Ethics. Ethical reflections pertaining to environmental and ecological problems is not new; in the recent times we have been discussing these issues in a more methodical and organised way. Methodicity taking centre stage in moral philosophical scrutiny of matters pertaining to life and world finds sceptics throwing stiff challenges to the method of ‘activism’ involving common men for their moral perceptions and resolution of the said ethical issues. Sceptics also challenge those who prefer ‘theoreticism’ involving ethicists and their sacred normative theories for the resolution of the said ethical issues. The paper tries to expound and face these sceptical challenges so that environmental ethics is not turned to a bundle of nonsense.

In the last decades of the XX century the world community precisely realized the huge danger of the ecological situation which had been developed on our planet under influence of negative technogenic and other anthropogenous factors. Very complex there were ecological conditions in the territory of the former USSR, including Central Asian region, in particular Uzbekistan, which had experienced all the toughness of the former colonial regime. Understanding the consequences of the ecological catastrophe in the region helps to model sociopolitical and economic activities in the field of preservation of the environment, to realize the fact, that in the system of interstate and interethnic relations the ecological policy should have a priority direction, and its integration, in general,is a modern globalization of international sociopolitical, economic and other relations. Thus, necessity of all-round development of coordination and integration of the ecological policies of the all States of our region, and also near and far abroad. Main principles of interstate ecological relations have been fixed in the declaration of Rio de Janeiro (1992) where it is underlined that “close cooperation and mutual aid of the countries in economic, political, ecological andcultural fields” is necessary, demanding modeling of nature protection actions on a global scale. Principles of integration of the ecological policy which are carried out by the States of the Central Asia , correspond to the regulations of Conference of Rio de Janeiro and equitable to the interests of all people living both inside and outside the region.

The paper discusses the critical need for ethical rethinking in relation to the environmental crisis in contemporary world. Beyond the present diversified perspectives in environmental ethical discourse (Anthropocentrism, Animal liberation/rights theory, Biocentrism and Ecocentrism), the paper makes a strong case for holism. The paper argues that while each of these schools of thought in environmental ethics has significant relevance and contributions to make, considered separately, they are for the most part, insufficient and inadequate toward revamping and protecting the world environment from further deterioration. As a consequence, the paper establishes that only a Holistic Environmental Ethics that synergistically adapts, integrates and encompasses the positive aspects of these four environmental ethical theories in a holistic whole is promising in challenging the environmental crisis.

The sole anthropocentrism led to environmental crisis, and the ideology of the individual standard of the anthropocentrism of Marxist philosophy aggravatedenvironmental crisis. As a result, some people considered that the theory of Marxist philosophy was outdated and could not guide people in their practice. And then they had a doubtful and negative attitude. But this idea is completely off base.The reason of this idea is that they neglected the future of Marxist philosophy and theory. The environmental anthropocentrism of categorical standard of Marxist philosophy will be able to solve the environmental crisis.

These notes take their starting point in the question posed by Lawrence Vogel: “Does environmental ethics need a metaphysical grounding?” and answers this question negatively. It is argued that Hans Jonas’ Das Prinzip Verantwortung does not come to an adequate understanding of the historical relation between metaphysics and technology, and that Jonas consequently fails to appreciate the specific role played by environmentalism within this relation. It is also argued that this specific role is more easily understandable if resources present in the work of Martin Heidegger concerning the above mentioned relation are employed. Whereas Jonas conceptualizes environmental ethics as a force to counter the reign of technology, Heidegger’s analysis of the essence of technology lends itself much more readily to an account of environmentalism which sees it as a maturation process within technology itself. Through this account, it becomes clear why environmental ethics never actually needed a metaphysical grounding, and why the strategy of industrial ecology marks a healthy step beyond the moralstrategy envisioned by Jonas.

A brief history of environmental consciousness in the western world places our views in perspective and provides a context for understanding the maze of related and unrelated thoughts, philosophies, and practices that we call “environmentalism”. Environmental ethics is a collection of independent ethicalgeneralizations, not a tight, rationally ordered set of rules. Environmental ethics is a collection of interrelated independent tendencies - a process field that is brought together for a long time. Ethics really results from people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviour. Society is facing many important decisions about the useof science and technology. These decisions affect the environment, human health, society and international policy. To resolve these issues, and develop principles to help us make decisions we need to involve anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, religion, psychology, philosophy, and economics; we must combine the scientific rigour of biological data, with the values of religion and philosophy to develop a world-view. The goal of environmental ethics is not to convince us that we should be concerned about the environment. Instead of it, environmental ethics focuses on the moral foundation of environmental responsibility, and how far this responsibility extends. The challenge of duty-based eco-centrism is to explain how conflicts are to be resolved between human‐centered duties and environment-centered ones. An adequate duty-based approach to environmental obligation requires prioritizing environmental duties according to a ranked importance of the various ecosystems in question. Conflicts between prioritized environmental and human duties, then, can only be resolved on a case by case basis. Although eco-centrism fails as a normative theory, eco-centrism may have merit as a way of expressing emotionaloutrage at environmental damage and demanding change.

The paper covers the origins, development, perspectives and solutions of the civilizational catastrophe of humanity. Humanity is defined as the restricted number of ideal, material, and temporal qualities of human beings. Its civilizational catastrophe is the contingent evolution of the specific element of human consciousness implementing rationality and technique, knowing no limits and no purposes, progressing outside ideal, material, and temporal boundaries of humanity, overcoming on its way limitations of human savagery and transcendental elements. Due to the particular quality of civilizational development, the law of humanity catastrophe could be stated, as the stage of civilization is inversely proportional to the level of humanity in human beings. Civilization catastrophe couldfinalize into other-being or non-being of humanity. Its evolution canalizes into different fields of activity, which are named categories of humanity civilization catastrophe, because each of them leads towards cardinal qualitative changes of humanity or its annihilation. The basic categories are elimination – civilized ability of humans to kill one another, speedization – permanent acceleration of the overhuman speed of civilizational processes; babylonization – the cobeingof different collective qualitative realizations; supermanization – scientific production of over-human being; transsexualization – the negation of sexual immobility of humanity; ballastization – the overproduction of information; ritualizatin – the murder of simple love activity in Jesus manner into ecclesiastic discourse. The onlysalvation of humanity is the total negation of civilization and selftransformation of humankind on the basis of its transcendental element which is love knowing no exceptions.

The goal of this thesis is to undo those assumptions about understanding and the doxastic and social relationships that are concomitant with those assumptions, while offering a different way of construing understanding that is conducive to allowing Christian religious educators to move forward in their work, especially as that work concerns intergenerational strife. This rewriting of our notions of understanding and relationship will be in a direction wherein thedistinctions between faith, knowledge, self-understanding, enculturation, and ethical choice are blurred. Accordingly, this thesis finds the concern with many of those interdisciplinary approaches to the study of philosophy, theology, and education that have been influenced by both Korean Christian religious education and its radical, deconstructive re-positionings. The thesis also attempts to reflexively deploy such approaches throughout.

We are experiencing a new phase of the crisis of the universality in the transmodern era. In the XXIst century there is room for the common search for the human unity starting from the acceptance of our fundamental diversity and the experiencing of an insular, local universality in the Digital Realm of the Net. There are good reasons to consider the Human Being has a ground non generic universality, inviting us to search the human integrality as a process, not as a result and to accept that the digital natives are naturally adapted to the Transmodern Era.

The idea to work on this topic was come to my mind when I came across Masaaki Hattori’s comment that Dinnaga has accepted Bhartrhari’s views regarding the meaning of a sentence although their theories of word meaning are completely different from each other. According to Bhartrhari, in all phenomenal entities there are two elements viz. jati and vyakti; jati refers to the real element and vyakti to the unreal. Vyakti suffer changes, whereas jati remains constant. Again according to him the real unit of language is a sentence, and not words or letters, because only a sentence conveys one full idea of the speaker. It’s meaning is also an instantaneous flash of pratibha or intuition, which has no parts. Dinnaga, on the other hand did not accept the reality of word‐ meaning (samanya),but maintained that words deal directly with conceptual images or vikalpas, which are purely subjective constructions of the mind, and therefore there can be no direct connection between words and external objects. The function of a word in a sentence is similar to the function of an inferential mark (linga) in the process of inference and it indicates its object through the exclusion of other things (apoha). Thus, there seems to be some contradictions in Dinnaga’s views on sentence meaning. But I think Dinnaga did not accept Bhartrhari’s views in toto. He could not possibly have done so. There is, however, a resemblance between Dinnaga and Bhartrhari in that each accepted that the primary unit of linguistic meaning is the entire sentence; the meaning of an individual word is abstracted from the whole meaning of the sentence. It is only in that respect that the two philosophers can be said to have roughly the same theory of sentential meaning.

In last century, the first, mankind was subjected to wars and hunger. The second, the earth was subjected to pollution and consumption. As a result of excessivedevelopment, the environment and the ecosystem was broken, the resources and the energy dried up nearly. This is the common problem that mankind has to face. Until the beginning of this century, this kind of crisis still can not be controlled effectively. Philosophy is the knowledge about world view, Philosopher should be certainly advocate of civilization, self-restraint, protecting environment, maintaining ecosystem long haul and getting away from the crisis. Philosopher should never content with considering with appeal; but there must be more active. The XXII World Congress of Philosophy that we are holding should benefit themankind to obtain more comfortable environment and more rich resources in XXII century.