Erazim Kohak, Prof., PhDr., DrSc., Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia, and Boston University, Mass., USA, in his article Toward an Agathocentric Ecology demonstrated to the readers his position toward an agothecentric ecology and expressed interesting ideas. Analyzing Kohak’s article I want to mark out that it is well-defined work with clear logic and explanations. The author found an explanation not only for the notion of agathocentric ecology but also for the human nature and wishes. At the beginning of the article Toward an agathocentric ecology we see the basic thesis definition. Kohak put in one raw human needs and nature needs; he connected them in one integer and paid our attention on the “ecological crisis”ť. According to Kohak’s words “basic thesis – that what we are accustomed to calling the “ecological crisis”ť is not a product of a conflict between human needs and the needs of nature but of a flawed perception of what our needs in truth are. It is, I believe, a crisis of our humanity rather than one of nature or technology, and so requires not only technological but also humanistic answers.”ť
Professor Kohak dwells on a question of human place in cosmos and human role in nature. Using traditional philosophy he looking for the “truth in the sense of an accurate description of that fact: what in fact, what in truth is the place of humans in the cosmos.”ťÂ In this article we can find extraordinary metaphor approach to life and proclaim that there is no “natural human environment.”ť We understand from the article that “agathontrically conceived ecology cannot be blind to the suffering of the masses of humans living out their lives on the brink of survival”ť.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned I want to note that Prof. Kohak express own opinion toward an agathocentric ecology and did it in simple and understandable form. Kohak’s work emphasizes an idea that humans are the part of nature and they are not worse and not better than other creatures. That’s a pity that people consider themselves “masters of life”ť and think that all things around were created specially for them. I think that the author choose right position and clear arguments for his cogent work. I like the last paragraph of the article most of all and for my opinion it is necessary to quote it for the understanding what was really said in the article. Kohak confirmed his position by the words: “The point, finally, is not simply to minimize the damage we cause in producing ever greater surpluses for a privileged segment of humanity. It is, rather, to decide how we shall use that surplus. If we use it only to generate ever greater surpluses, ever greater production, consumption and waste, our ecological efforts are doomed to failure. If we use it to care for all nature, human and non-human, we might yet succeed, not just in saving the earth but in saving ourselves. Because, ultimately, humans are the beings whose great need is not to have but to love and to care, called out of nature not to conquer but to serve – to do good.”ť For the end of the paper I want to add that people try to cherish the treasures of national culture but make a lot of harm to the surrounding nature. I think that the main idea of the article is to open our yeas on the problems of nature and ecology; even show that we create our future by own efforts and what we do now that will be our reality in future. There is also an old folk proverb that repeals nowadays situation:”ť He that does not respect is not respected.”ť Let’s be more attentive to our planet and environment.